Discussion with Atheist on morality vs. ethics, 9/9

dan barker, charles darwin, morality, ethics.jpg

Concluding a discussion took place due to my video Atheist defines morality “I want what I want…it’s good because it’s what I want.” See all portions of this discussion here.


Concluding a discussion took place due to my video Atheist defines morality “I want what I want…it’s good because it’s what I want.” See all portions of this discussion here.

While you are at it, see my book Pop-Atheist Bible Expositors starring Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Dan Barker, and Neil deGrasse Tyson and also my book Reasons for Being An Atheist: A Comprehensive Guide.

eddy eldridge
You keep telling me to keep my replies concise, then you go and cram a bunch of fallacies into a long response. Not that I expected a theist to ever practice what they preach. But you can’t make any claims on my worldview, since you still don’t know what it is. You THINK my worldview is atheism, partly because you don’t listen, and partly because it’s easier to fight straw men. I have answers for all of them, and atheism has nothing to do with any of them. But why bother explaining if you’re not only not going to read it, but then complain that my responses are too long? I’m tired of waiting a week for each response from a guy who has no interest in being honest.

Ken Ammi
Friend, you keep failing for the failings in your worldview such as that you complain that I am not being “honest” but you do not provide a premise upon which to think that there is anything wrong with being dishonest which makes your condemnation meaningless.
I noted “you hold me to standards of truth, logic and ethics when your worldview fails to even provide you the prerequisites upon which to establish such?” Please elucidate.

eddy eldridge
It doesn’t matter what my worldview is. You made a positive claim, its on YOU to prove its true. Not to make up what someone else’s worldview is, not to tell them what their worldview must or must not entail and certainly not to dodge your burden of proof.

Ken Ammi
Friend, of course it matters what your worldview is since if your worldview is invalid then so is everything you have commented. And if your worldview does not provide you with the premises upon which to hold people to standards of truth, logic and ethics then that too invalidates your comments. For example, you demand evidence so the issue is that you are getting ahead of yourself by jumping to a conclusion: the conclusion that evidence is to be presented. Even it really is to be presented, you must first establish upon what basis you demand it and then deal with the issue of the standards of truth, logic and ethics. I know that people love to argue by beginning with conclusions and demanding a reply but the problem is that your worldview fails before it even begins so that you must begin with unfounded presuppositions but just because this is a failure of your worldview does not mean that the rest of us are required to adhere to it.

eddy eldridge
+Ken Ammi No, you don’t get to duck out of having to prove your point just by claiming someone’s worldview is invalid. if that was the case, then I don’t have to prove my worldview is valid, because yours is invalid, and so is everything you say. See how your logic gets us nowhere? It would leave all world views free from criticism, as the only people you’d deem worthy of questioning it would be those who’ve already accepted it. you’re like every other theist, trying to find ways to avoid having to prove your bs.

dan barker, charles darwin, morality, ethics.jpg

Ken Ammi
No, you don’t get to duck out of having to prove your point just by claiming someone’s worldview is invalid. if that was the case, then I don’t have to prove my worldview is valid, because yours is invalid, and so is everything you say. See how your logic gets us nowhere? It would leave all world views free from criticism, as the only people you’d deem worthy of questioning it would be those who’ve already accepted it. you’re like every other Atheist, trying to find ways to avoid having to prove your bs.
I will just add that you keep demanding I adhere to standards of truth, ethics and logic and yet, without a premise.

eddy eldridge
+Ken Ammi I don’t have to prove a Damon thing, as an atheist, Because I’m not making a claim, as an atheist. I’m merely saying I don’t believe YOUR claim, and since you know you can’t prove your claim, you try to shift the burden of proof. So in the end, either I automatically agree with you, or my worldview is invalid, and in neither of those cases do you feel the need to prove anything. These are the kind of slime ball tactics theists use to avoid having to prove anything. You can’t raise your position up, so you try to beat others’ positions down. And that’s why you try to conflate atheism. Because atheism is the null position. It doesn’t make claims, it simply rejects your claims, without accepting the opposite claim. Name a position a person can hold in which they regard you as wrong, yet their worldview is still valid. If you can’t name such a position, that proves you’re dishonest.
Ken Ammi at this point, I don’t even remember what made up worldview you gave me, since you wait a week in between responses. Which I’m starting to think you do just to try my patience and get me to give up.

Ken Ammi
What you seem to be failing to recognize is that even just to stated, “I don’t have to prove a Damon thing, as an atheist, Because I’m not making a claim, as an atheist” you are relying on my worldview as yours provides you no premise for logic.
Well, the video is about morality vs. ethics and my case still stands.
So, what is it I am supposed to “prove”?
Also, that Atheists make no claims, is a null position, etc. is mere propaganda.
Lastly, you accuse me of being “dishonest” but upon what premise do you do so?
I “made up” no worldview for you but am referring to your Atheist worldview. Also, it is fascinating that you set an arbitrary subjective standard for posting comments and imagine that it is some sort of tactic. Well, it is a tactic: I life a full life offline and so reply to all of my YT comments once per week.

eddy eldridge
+Ken Ammi And as I’ve stated previously, atheism is not my worldview, it is a symptom of my worldview, intellectual humanism. It values truth, General well being, and other things. But since you can’t argue against those things without sounding like a lunatic, you take the tiny little piece of it you hate the most (a lack of belief in your god) And try to build it into something more than it is. Now, as an intellectual humanist, I value truth over lies and I discern truth through evidence. when I ask for proof and the other person refuses to present any and actively looks for excuses to keep himself from having to present any, I’m left to assume he’s lying until proven otherwise. And if you lie about my worldview once more, were done.

Ken Ammi
Ah well, it is one thing to list the things that you have subjectively decided to value de jour (based on random bio-chemical reactions you call thoughts) but how does “intellectual humanism” provided you a premise upon which to hold me to standards of truth, logic, ethics and condemnation?

eddy eldridge
Why not? Why are you doing it? Because your god told you those things are valuable, in his subjective opinion, and your subjective fear of him or subjective desire to be subjective to him, compels you to agree with him? Both of our desires for truth is subjective. As are all desires. Including your desire for your position to be objective.

Ken Ammi
Again, how does “intellectual humanism” provided you a premise upon which to hold me to standards of truth, logic, ethics and condemnation?

eddy eldridge
How does anything provide one with such a premise?

Ken Ammi
So, just to review, I asked “how does ‘intellectual humanism’ provided you a premise upon which to hold me to standards of truth, logic, ethics and condemnation?” and you have made it clear that it does not so you have just disqualified yourself from holding anyone to standards of truth, logic, ethics and condemnation.

eddy eldridge
no, I asked hoe anything does that. if your worldview doesn’t do that, you don’t have the right to hold other people to this standard.
if you’re does, and you explain how it does, I might be better able to articulate how mine does.
unless you’re just going to continue trying to avoid proving your position.
Honestly, you’re putting FAR more effort into misrepresenting and trying to tear down all opposing positions than presenting a shred of evidence for your own.

Ken Ammi
This is rather odd: so I asked “how does ‘intellectual humanism’ provided you a premise upon which to hold me to standards of truth, logic, ethics and condemnation?” and you avoided answering by asking “hoe anything does that”?
Well, mine does in the same way that is was the premise upon which the scientific method was established: a rational being created a rational creation and populated it with rational beings who could therefore, rationally discern it.
Truth, logic, ethics and condemnation are premised upon relationships occurring with the Godhead which, since God is outside/beyond/transcends time, space and matter are eternal.
Life, the universe and everything is premised upon preexisting information, the only known source of information is mind and that mind is that which we call God.

eddy eldridge
Now, just to be perfectly certain, how, exactly, in no uncertain terms, does that lead you to hold anyone else to the standard of having to provide evidence of what they say? If you can show it does, I should be able to easily show how my position does.

Ken Ammi
This was not about holding anyone else to the standard of having to provide evidence of what they say” but about holding people to standards of truth, logic, ethics (and justifying condemnation).

eddy eldridge
okay, but how, exactly, does your worldview enable you to hold people to those standards?

Ken Ammi
Because, unlike as per your worldview, mine establishes that truth is, that it is knowable, that knowing it is an imperative, and that truth personified “I am the…truth” said Jesus. Your worldview implies that survival is job one (for some unknown reason) and if you can survive by believing in delusion then it matters not—that would just be a Darwinian survival mechanism.

eddy eldridge
+Ken Ammi so, as long as some guy in history said he is the truth, and I believe him at face value, that makes my worldview viable?

Ken Ammi
I am beginning to think that you are missing the point and avoiding the issue on purpose. Your turn: how does ‘intellectual humanism’ provided you a premise upon which to hold me to standards of truth, logic, ethics and condemnation? And I am looking for something besides because your brain’s bio-chemical reactions de jour forced you to claim as much.

And that was the end of it as no further replies were forthcoming.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.