Gamutman, David question is how can an atheist condemn killing of babies, you answered, No support. Thus from you answer, Atheism is false worldview.
On Burden of proof, It is a false assertion that existence of God burden of proof rest not on atheist. If that is so then atheist are atheist because of blind faith since they do not bother/have proof to support their claim "God does not exist".
Burden of proof defense given by an atheist is just a facade to hidden from defending its position
@ProteusIQ Taking your first point, Atheism is not a worldview. It is the dismissal of a precept. Buddhists also do not believe in God and yet have a worldview which describes their morality. Other moral codes exist besides Christianity such as Chivalry, Vedic teaching and Janism. In nature, wolves, ants and geese all seem to have innate moral codes. One does not have to believe in a moral law giver to be moral.
@gamutman Very true, one does not have to believe in a moral law giver to be moral. But that is not the case, it is the existence of Moral giver, not the belief, that enable one to be moral.
@ProteusIQ If that were true, then morality would have no gray areas. There'd be only one interpretation of right and wrong and it would be universal to even people who never heard of God.
However, morality is full of gray areas. There is no universal consensus on right and wrong. Therefore there is no moral law giver.
@ProteusIQ On your 2nd point, you are correct that an atheist who asserts that no God exists has taken on the burden of proof for that position. But there is a difference between saying, "I believe there is no God," and saying "I do not believe in any God I have ever been told about." If you are a Christian, then you do not believe in Valhalla. Is it your responsibility (your burden) to prove that it doesn't exist before you claim to not believe in it? Do you disbelieve in Valhal on blind faith?
@JulianwithJ yes, if you're going to claim that it's "objectively" wrong and not "subjectively" wrong, you do have to explain why. Especially in light of the fact that in the bible, God kills babies (Egypt most notably). In Psalms, the writer claims that those who smash the heads of babies on rocks are blessed.
@gamutman God can punish becuase he knows who derserve punishment in the end. We as human are not allowed to kill, that authority is not given to us. God is almighty and when he does something we have to trust its the best thing he does, and that he knows what he is doing. But im pretty sure that you think that this doesnt make sence, and thats becuase you dont believe in god, and you have not been given the holy spirit to reveal the secrets of the bible.
@JulianwithJ You're arguing that things which are objectively wrong are not objectively wrong for God. That makes them subjective. Are you familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma?
"The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods?"
@gamutman, Euthyphro dilemma, argument commits False dilemma fallacy. Things are objectively right or wrong because of existence of God. God's nature is the standard for right, and going against it is objectively wrong. God can not go against his nature. Worldview eye-glasses that affect a person's view on life and the world, worldview answers is there God, is Morality objective, is there after life, etc. Thus atheism is a worldview.
@ProteusIQ A dichotomy is only false if there is a third (or more) options overlooked in the description of the dilemma. Your argument (that God's unchanging nature defines morality) is the same as saying that God's fiat determines right and wrong. And it faces the same problem; if a thing is only moral because of God's fiat, then it has no intrinsic moral quality unto itself and is subjectively moral. Otherwise we'd all come to the same moral conclusions.
On what internally consistent basis do you accept biblical claims of Jesus' divinity, assertions about his miracles, and the bible's position on salvation and the afterlife while rejecting contradictory claims from the Koran which can use the same arguments to support their position that we should accept Koranic claims?
Okay, now here's a question for David. I created this question for Ray Comfort, but he's too afraid to answer I guess. The question is on the following video:
We atheists don't have to support the objective morality of Hitler's evil or explain why killing babies is objectively wrong, because our argument is that morals are subjective. It's actually on you to demonstrate that killing babies is objectively wrong. A baby killer may actually believe that killing babies is morally correct, but if society disagrees (which is a genetic imperative) then we will hold the killer to our subjective standard.
It has been shown that all of those arguments are poor or weak. The burden of proof is not on atheists to prove that God exists. Taking just your argument of many minds, it's actually still an issue of philosophical debate. DesCarte's Cogito ergo sum validly says all I really know is that I am thinking. We must assume other minds simply to relate, but the same does not hold true for God. If it's reasonable to assume God in that way, then it's also reasonable to assume fairies or living statues.
Do the Argument for existence of God support only Monotheistic God or also other gods? How does one move from Argument for God to Christianity?
ProteusIQ 1 year ago
Gamutman, David question is how can an atheist condemn killing of babies, you answered, No support. Thus from you answer, Atheism is false worldview.
On Burden of proof, It is a false assertion that existence of God burden of proof rest not on atheist. If that is so then atheist are atheist because of blind faith since they do not bother/have proof to support their claim "God does not exist".
Burden of proof defense given by an atheist is just a facade to hidden from defending its position
ProteusIQ 1 year ago 2
@ProteusIQ Taking your first point, Atheism is not a worldview. It is the dismissal of a precept. Buddhists also do not believe in God and yet have a worldview which describes their morality. Other moral codes exist besides Christianity such as Chivalry, Vedic teaching and Janism. In nature, wolves, ants and geese all seem to have innate moral codes. One does not have to believe in a moral law giver to be moral.
gamutman 1 year ago
@gamutman Very true, one does not have to believe in a moral law giver to be moral. But that is not the case, it is the existence of Moral giver, not the belief, that enable one to be moral.
ProteusIQ 1 year ago
@ProteusIQ If that were true, then morality would have no gray areas. There'd be only one interpretation of right and wrong and it would be universal to even people who never heard of God.
However, morality is full of gray areas. There is no universal consensus on right and wrong. Therefore there is no moral law giver.
gamutman 1 year ago
@ProteusIQ On your 2nd point, you are correct that an atheist who asserts that no God exists has taken on the burden of proof for that position. But there is a difference between saying, "I believe there is no God," and saying "I do not believe in any God I have ever been told about." If you are a Christian, then you do not believe in Valhalla. Is it your responsibility (your burden) to prove that it doesn't exist before you claim to not believe in it? Do you disbelieve in Valhal on blind faith?
gamutman 1 year ago
" It's actually on you to demonstrate that killing babies is objectively wrong. "
Do we (christians) really have to explain to you why its objectively wrong to kill babies? Thats just absurd!
JulianwithJ 1 year ago
@JulianwithJ yes, if you're going to claim that it's "objectively" wrong and not "subjectively" wrong, you do have to explain why. Especially in light of the fact that in the bible, God kills babies (Egypt most notably). In Psalms, the writer claims that those who smash the heads of babies on rocks are blessed.
gamutman 1 year ago
@gamutman God can punish becuase he knows who derserve punishment in the end. We as human are not allowed to kill, that authority is not given to us. God is almighty and when he does something we have to trust its the best thing he does, and that he knows what he is doing. But im pretty sure that you think that this doesnt make sence, and thats becuase you dont believe in god, and you have not been given the holy spirit to reveal the secrets of the bible.
JulianwithJ 1 year ago
@JulianwithJ You're arguing that things which are objectively wrong are not objectively wrong for God. That makes them subjective. Are you familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma?
"The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods?"
gamutman 1 year ago
@gamutman, Euthyphro dilemma, argument commits False dilemma fallacy. Things are objectively right or wrong because of existence of God. God's nature is the standard for right, and going against it is objectively wrong. God can not go against his nature. Worldview eye-glasses that affect a person's view on life and the world, worldview answers is there God, is Morality objective, is there after life, etc. Thus atheism is a worldview.
ProteusIQ 1 year ago
@ProteusIQ A dichotomy is only false if there is a third (or more) options overlooked in the description of the dilemma. Your argument (that God's unchanging nature defines morality) is the same as saying that God's fiat determines right and wrong. And it faces the same problem; if a thing is only moral because of God's fiat, then it has no intrinsic moral quality unto itself and is subjectively moral. Otherwise we'd all come to the same moral conclusions.
gamutman 1 year ago
@gamutman If you wanna understand the bible and god, you can allways turn to him and ask him :)
JulianwithJ 1 year ago
@JulianwithJ Right, because no atheist has eve tried that. Oh, wait ... yes, most of us have.
If you want to understand the Koran and Allah, you can always turn to him and ask him.
If you want to understand the Vedas and Vishnu, you can always turn to him and ask him.
If you wan to understand the Book of the Dead and Osiris, you can always turn to him and ask him.
If you want to understand Dianetics and Lord Xenu, you can always turn to him and ask him.
gamutman 1 year ago
nice mate :)
JulianwithJ 1 year ago
On what internally consistent basis do you accept biblical claims of Jesus' divinity, assertions about his miracles, and the bible's position on salvation and the afterlife while rejecting contradictory claims from the Koran which can use the same arguments to support their position that we should accept Koranic claims?
gamutman 1 year ago
Okay, now here's a question for David. I created this question for Ray Comfort, but he's too afraid to answer I guess. The question is on the following video:
watch?v=-ANd9mopjU8
gamutman 1 year ago
We atheists don't have to support the objective morality of Hitler's evil or explain why killing babies is objectively wrong, because our argument is that morals are subjective. It's actually on you to demonstrate that killing babies is objectively wrong. A baby killer may actually believe that killing babies is morally correct, but if society disagrees (which is a genetic imperative) then we will hold the killer to our subjective standard.
gamutman 1 year ago
It has been shown that all of those arguments are poor or weak. The burden of proof is not on atheists to prove that God exists. Taking just your argument of many minds, it's actually still an issue of philosophical debate. DesCarte's Cogito ergo sum validly says all I really know is that I am thinking. We must assume other minds simply to relate, but the same does not hold true for God. If it's reasonable to assume God in that way, then it's also reasonable to assume fairies or living statues.
gamutman 1 year ago