I fully agree with you that the burden of proof lies with them. I was more trying to state that the burdnen of proof lies in the existence of the being. The original post isn't specifically trying to disprove the existence of god and jesus but rather to bring their morality into question by equating gods actions in the bible to that of dictators. This then is coming from the argument of, assuming god exists, then he is evil. I was tying to give a perspective as to why, as long as the person believes god iss the source of morality and they accept all he is said to have done but that it is still evil for humans then they the argument made in the link does not hold. This is because they are then making a definition of god and morality which is different to our definition of morality, and unless we change our focus of discussion to the existence of that god (where in our previous discussion we had implicitly accepted his existence for argument sake), we are then stuck in an argument of definition rather than an argument of morality.
Wow text posting on your touch screen phone is not a good medium for this kind of discussion :P I really feel like this is something we'd be able to clear up quickly if we were discussing in person haha
Yeah, posting from my tablet is a hell of a lot slower.
Even if their god were real we have no reason to assume everything claimed about it is true. We don't have to judge by its standards, we are perfectly capable of judging by our own standards and deciding for ourselves whether or not we find their claims to be true.
Divine command theory is a scam, a cop out so believers don't have to explain why their god is justified in committing atrocities we would execute anyone else over. If we had anything concrete to go by we could examine whether or not our assumptions are wrong. Since we don't we can only go with the standards available to us, not blindly accept whatever we're told just because we have no way to disprove it.
Haha, it is so weird debating this side of the topic when this is actually one of the many issues that aided in me loosing my faith a while back. But that was because I could not accept the definition of morality that I would need to accept to be ok with, I find those who can accept it to be really creepy because I make sure they know they are accepting some really messed up shit about god. It's just that if that is the god they believe exists and on top of that believe is the definition of morality then I because I accept my own morality is simply an axiom rather than an absolute, I then don't feel justified arguing from that perspective anymore and change tact. The thing is I don't think there are many Christians who truly believe it because most squirm when you start pointing out some of the things they are accepting then throw in a solid "I have faith he is good." to comfort themselves.
I fully agree with you that the burden of proof lies with them. I was more trying to state that the burdnen of proof lies in the existence of the being. The original post isn't specifically trying to disprove the existence of god and jesus but rather to bring their morality into question by equating gods actions in the bible to that of dictators. This then is coming from the argument of, assuming god exists, then he is evil. I was tying to give a perspective as to why, as long as the person believes god iss the source of morality and they accept all he is said to have done but that it is still evil for humans then they the argument made in the link does not hold. This is because they are then making a definition of god and morality which is different to our definition of morality, and unless we change our focus of discussion to the existence of that god (where in our previous discussion we had implicitly accepted his existence for argument sake), we are then stuck in an argument of definition rather than an argument of morality.
Wow text posting on your touch screen phone is not a good medium for this kind of discussion :P I really feel like this is something we'd be able to clear up quickly if we were discussing in person haha
Edit: changed difediffe to different
Yeah, posting from my tablet is a hell of a lot slower.
Even if their god were real we have no reason to assume everything claimed about it is true. We don't have to judge by its standards, we are perfectly capable of judging by our own standards and deciding for ourselves whether or not we find their claims to be true.
Divine command theory is a scam, a cop out so believers don't have to explain why their god is justified in committing atrocities we would execute anyone else over. If we had anything concrete to go by we could examine whether or not our assumptions are wrong. Since we don't we can only go with the standards available to us, not blindly accept whatever we're told just because we have no way to disprove it.
Haha, it is so weird debating this side of the topic when this is actually one of the many issues that aided in me loosing my faith a while back. But that was because I could not accept the definition of morality that I would need to accept to be ok with, I find those who can accept it to be really creepy because I make sure they know they are accepting some really messed up shit about god. It's just that if that is the god they believe exists and on top of that believe is the definition of morality then I because I accept my own morality is simply an axiom rather than an absolute, I then don't feel justified arguing from that perspective anymore and change tact. The thing is I don't think there are many Christians who truly believe it because most squirm when you start pointing out some of the things they are accepting then throw in a solid "I have faith he is good." to comfort themselves.