Matt Slick's TAG Ripped Apart Once More
Top Comments
All Comments (472)
-
Heh, if Christians argue that biblical slavery was so nice and good, then ask them if they would think it'd be okay to bring biblical slavery back in the modern day.
Regardless of how they answer it they will pwn themselves. Because if they say yes, they are pro-slavery. And if they say no, they're admitting their precious biblical slavery IS immoral after all. (Plus you can then also hammer them on why anything else in the bible should be considered moral, and on moral absolutism.)
-
Sure atheism doesn't account for morality.
But religion accounts for IMMORALITY. Religion is all about things like bigotry, genocide, slavery etc. The religious claim it's not, but it so obviously is.
-
@meeene4 Worried about writings in a book from 1749? LMAO!! Get with the times, man.
Here, I'll address your issue......In order for agent A to achieve goal B, A reasonably ought to do C. DONE! No problems and no errors.
-
@baxtar1963 Oh please, if evolution is the basis of morality how do you bridge Hume's Is-Ought gap? No secular account of morality can seem to answer this.. how do you infer an Ought statement from a fact about the world?
-
Because there is an empty tomb for these arguments :P
Of course being an empty tomb proves that they must be correct and keep coming back
-
@buzzbbird Just to take one limited example, if I cause harm to everyone I meet, then they will not want to be around me voluntarily, or cooperate with me, or help me if I get in trouble. I'll also be seen as a threat that they'd likely eliminate if given the chance. There outcomes are a huge loss for me, so there would have to be a huge payoff for me to even consider general violence as an option. And this is purely from an economic evaluation of a situation, not a moral one.
-
@buzzbbird "As with the claim that Christianity has presuppositions and begging questions, so does Atheism. Where does it become incumbant that causing no harm IS the correct thing?"
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. What on earth does this have to do with causing harm, or refraining from it? Also, there are concrete reasons why causing harm generally, but not always, is bad. It is not a presupposition, but a consideration of likely outcomes based on experience.
-
As with the claim that Christianity has presuppositions and begging questions, so does Atheism. Where does it become incumbant that causing no harm IS the correct thing? In ALL the statements made, there is an underlying presupposition in order to continue on the path shown.
-
I was talking to Matt Slick the other day and he was complaining about that debate with Matt D felt like it took light years before he pwn'd those dirty atheists. I swear to gawd he did! ^_^
Morality evolves or evolution accounts for morality. Religion has evolved. They don't stone people anymore or do they? Slavery, rape and honor killings etc has all been a thing of the past in most religions. This has been the evolution of morality for the good of society. We the people have done this not religion.
baxtar1963 8 months ago 17
@Zentz29
Martin called those arguments "PRATT" - previously refuted a thousand times.
WLC, acknowledged by Xians to be their finest apologist, usually uses
Kalam (points to no specific theistic god - incomplete)
Fine-tuning (points to no specific theistic god - self-refuting)
Moral (points to no specific theistic god - based on an unfounded premise)
Five Es (apparently an empty tomb is ALWAYS evidence of resurrection)
You have to wonder why they keep making these corpses of arguments...
JMUDoc 6 months ago 8