When Atheists utterly refuse to discuss “Biblical views on slavery,” 2 of 7

Hereinafter continues a series depicting discussion I had—or, attempted to have—with various Atheist about a video titled, “Biblical views on slavery with and Old an New Testament Scholar”—when all segments are posted, you will be able to find them all here.

You will note that the Atheists were quick to jump to their typical brimstone and fire condemnation modus operandi. However, once I sought to pick the scab of the conclusions with which they began, which exposed the mere assertions upon which they were jumping to conclusions, they typically called me names and utterly refused to engage in issues that are inconvenient to their worldviews.

Picking up where we left off in the previous segment, a certain Sia chimed in with:

This has been answered so many times. The “problems” you raise are not solved by appealing to your god of choice.

Ken Ammi:

That is an interesting assertion since I have been begging Atheists in this comments section for weeks to deal with the issue and if it “has been answered so many times” I figured someone, such as yourself, would elucidate how rather than just making a claim.

On Atheism, the only problems are that some accidentally existing apes interpreted their random bio-chemical neural reactions to the effect that they emotionally do not subjectively like something de jour.

Sia:

And you have the same problem with your favorite deity. In your worldview, morality is subject to whatever your god likes, only it gets worse, because not only can you not demonstrate its existence, you cannot even demonstrate that it cares about humans and our well being

Ken Ammi:

Just to review, you asserted “This has been answered so many times,” I noted, “if it ‘has been answered so many times’ I figured someone, such as yourself, would elucidate how rather than just making a claim” and you are dropping that assertion and replacing it with admitting that On Atheism, the only problems are that some accidentally existing apes interpreted their random bio-chemical neural reactions to the effect that they emotionally do not subjectively like something de jour.”

Very well then. Yet, “you have the same problem” is a tu quoque logical fallacy—I mean, I realize that on our worldview logical fallacies do not matter, but still.

Of course, in my worldview morality is subject since by definition it refers to the mores but ethics when referring to the ethos is objective.

So, it seems that, just like every other Atheist in this comments section: you want to avoid the contextual issue and move the goalpost: is that correct?

Sia:

Just to review, it would be awesome is you could be concise and coherent in your responses. You use a whole lot of words to say not much of anything at all. The premise upon which we can condemn “anything” is an innate moral sense, and caring about human well being – things that can actually be demonstrated, unlike any god.

Matt Dillahunty talks about the superiority of secular morality almost weekly, and even has a few videos on that singular subject. You would be on equal footing with atheists whose moral judgments you claim are based on things we “emotionally do not subjectively like something de [sic] jour” (your sentence structure leaves much to be desired), because your moral system is based on what God “does not subjectively like du jour,” but as I said, it’s even worse, because you can’t demonstrate that your God exists (and humans actually exist), nor can you demonstrate that it cares about human well being.

Maybe you should try to justify your own flawed moral system (which isn’t a system, because you have no way of even determining what’s moral under theism), and less time trying to get non-theists to justify theirs, because at least our foundation is reality.

Ken Ammi:

Yet, friend, on your worldview, “innate moral sense, and caring about human well being” are accidents so, why should we adhere to the byproducts of accidents?

You claim these “can actually be demonstrated” but do not say what imperative there is, on your worldview, for demanding adherence to things that can be demonstrated.

You also claim that such is “unlike any god” which besides being a mere assertion runs into the same problem: why, on your worldview, should we accidentally and temporarily existing apes not believe in things that cannot be demonstrated?

If Dillahunty is someone you look up to on such issues then I am afraid that reveals a lot about your standards. Did you know that by “secular morality” he is referring to “taking the principles you see in Christianity and just removing God”? (https://twitter.com/Atheism_is_Dead/status/1227418352118689793).

Thus, he is merely stealing from my worldview and pretending it is a part of his simply because well, what he actually does is to cause it to collapse since he rejects the premise. He also encourages people to become Atheists if they like to sin—and that is supposed to be superior? (https://twitter.com/Atheism_is_Dead/status/1109557387428413440).

We would have to get into the technical definitions of morality vs. ethics.

That which God does not subjectively like du jour would be preferable than what you offer yet, ethics (the ethos) reflects God ontology.

But what does any of that matter to you on your worldview according to which you are attempting to prove that an accidentally and temporarily existing ape, me, believes in things are not true according to the accidental byproducts of random bi-chemical neural reactions occurring within the haphazardly evolved brain, which you call thoughts, of another accidentally and temporarily existing ape, you?

You assert “you can’t demonstrate that your God exists” but how do you know that? Besides, step one if for you to justify your demand for a demonstration.

Again, you merely assert a supposed imperative to base our views upon a “foundation” of “reality” but only as an un-premised jump to conclusions—and, of course, with reality being accidental, on your worldview.

Sia:

Whether or not it’s an “accident” is irrelevant to the fact that we exist in our current reality and must operate within it. A rational consideration of the consequences of my actions with respect to the goal of human well being is superior to anything any undemonstrated god wants.

I have no reason to care what any god thinks or wants, especially when the only information I have about this god is that it commands humans to commit demonstrably harmful acts, and even MORE especially when it can’t be demonstrated to exist (my justification for demanding a demonstration is that you are literally claiming that it exists and that I should care about what it wants.

If you sincerely think that there is no reason to NOT believe in things that haven’t been demonstrated, then you have moved beyond rational discourse). In your worldview, your actions against your fellow, DEMONSTRABLY REAL humans are inconsequential.

The only thing that matters is imagined slights against your preferred deity. Your worldview doesn’t even take into consideration your actions’ effects on actual people, only whether or not it makes your god happy or sad.

So on your worldview, you’re stuck trying to please a being(?) that can’t be demonstrated, with no consideration of the consequences to people existing in reality. And you think that’s moral.

I have a question for you: do you think humans can tell right from wrong?

Ken Ammi:

Friend, it is very relevant if we and our current reality is accidental or not: if accidental then there is no absolute universal imperative to believe it is accidental nor any imperative to adhere to such a reality—and also since out ability to discern reality would also be accidental.

Agreed, “A rational consideration of the consequences of my actions with respect to the goal of human well being is superior to anything any undemonstrated god wants” but my premise is not an “undemonstrated god” so you are talking to the wrong person.

But let us work with that thusly “A rational consideration of the consequences of my actions with respect to the goal of human well being” is a merely an asserted subjective personal preference and that it is “superior” is also based on subjectivism and implies an absolute standard—which your worldview fails to provide.

See, when you say “god…commands humans to commit demonstrably harmful acts” that is a merely asserted subjective interpretation of your accidental neural bio-chemistry.

You demand God has not been demonstrated but that is a mere jump to conclusions. And your supposed justification is merely you adding one assertion atop another.

When you assert that on my “worldview, your actions against your fellow, DEMONSTRABLY REAL humans are inconsequential…Your worldview doesn’t even take into consideration your actions’ effects on actual people, only whether or not it makes your god happy or sad” is shockingly erroneous: ever heard of the 1,001 commandments about how to treat about how to treat fellow, DEMONSTRABLY REAL humans in the Bible?

By the way, when there is only one of something it is impossible, by definition, to prefer one thing other another.

So, when you say something like on your worldview, you’re stuck trying to please a being(?) that can’t be demonstrated…” you are merely emoting without a premise and are still failing to tell me why that matters, if that is the case, if we are what you actually claim to believe which is that we are accidental apes.

What, you want to claim victory because you prove that an accidental apes’ neural bio-chemistry differs from yours so you are right and another ape is wrong?

Of course humans can tell right from wrong—it is just that on your worldview there is no absolute manner whereby to even defined “right” or “wrong” and it matters no either way.

Sia:

You are literally too stupid to continue arguing with

Ken Ammi:

Well, the bottom line is that you wasted all of our time desperately moving the goalpost, just like every single other Atheist I have attempted to interact with in this comments section, and I would imagine that it is because somewhere in your mind you know that your worldview provides you no premise upon which to condemn what you claim are accidentally existing apes enslaving other accidentally existing apes but all you could say is that you have subjectively and emotively personally decided to not like it—and that, of course, based on hidden assumptions that you stole from my worldview.

Well, that ended that exchange since I am literally too stupid.

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

In the next segment, another Atheist will be up to bat.

Learn more about Atheism from my various books about that worldview.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.