God, Morality and Gratuitous Football Metaphors.

Response to Epydemic2020 on Christian morality. Am I SERIOUSLY incapable of making a video under twenty minutes, now? Is this what it's come to?

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• morality
• treatise
• morals
• ethics
• epydemic2020
• god
• atheism
• contra
• theoreticalbullshit
• right
• wrong
• moral
• immoral
• ought
• is

[threewiseman1]

@JEJMDTD

So, the burden of proof is on you."

There *are* counter-arguments for every argument made for the existence of god. They convince me. Obviously they don't convince you, or you are unaware of them.

But atheism doesn't *make* a claim, it *rejects* a claim. Do you see the distinction?

If the burden of proof is on the rejector, then you have to prove there *aren't* invisible fairies pulling matter together, otherwise the statement is considered true. See?

[corridorofpower]

You are a legend.

[Scyntist]

...the Force is strong in this one

[IronAnimation]

the dark tone of the wind blowing at the end really put it all together

[AtheistTower]

@threewiseman1

" for every argument made"

Have you heard of every argument made? That's a highly arrogant statement.

[RatherCynical]

@AtheistTower It's a byproduct of atheistic viewpoints; by not accepting the notion of the purported 'God's existence, you can claim that heaven and hell (products of religion) cannot be true.

[RatherCynical]

@threewiseman1 Oh, and there's one more problem. If you were to follow their train of thought, you would also have to accept that every other religious belief is true since that would become the default position. This can't be possible, because all monotheistic religions are directly contradictory to the beliefs of any other monotheistic religion (There is only Yahweh, there is only Allah, etc.)

[RatherCynical]

@JEJMDTD Do you realise what's a burden of proof?

[RatherCynical]

@VicFranklyn as if your objections hold any weight whatsoever. Your blanket assertions that evolution is 'dogma' is laughable - it's evident that you fail to realise what dogma even is. If that is supposedly granted to be fact, what does it change? It still fails to provide any support to the implicit notion that the biblical portrayal of Yahweh exists.

Oh, and I like how you blatantly misrepresent our views. We're not objecting on the basis of evolution.

Please, start thinking.

[alvarojosemarquez]

@ChrispyTheology777 Probably; but a quick glance at that argument will show that his actions are inconsistent with his nature. Going a bit deeper will show how some values (loving the Truth) appear to be more "valuable" than others, and this creates some serious inconsistencies with what we believe morality to be. Go a bit deeper and you'll find a world of fallacies and inconsistencies waiting to feast on your sanity.

[alvarojosemarquez]

Just wanted to point out, our knowledge of the morality standard is necessarily intersubjective (grosso modo: we can't learn that honesty, love etc. are "good" by ourelves, we need society for that), which means it is synthetic. Now, as you clearly implied, our knowledge that honesty is moral is a posteriori knowledge. These two premises make any moral judgement ("dishonesty is immoral") a synthetic/a posteriori proposition; rendering God (or god, or whatever) completely irrelevant.