The debate was interesting for two reasons: 1) It's always enjoyable when an atheist is so utterly dominated, even when he clearly has a helper talking to him in the background; and 2) Skelly uses the Transcendental Argument for God's existence (TAG), which is a presuppositional argument. I didn't know of a presuppositional apologist who is not a Calvinist, and yet Skelly hates Calvinism and is a Pelagian. So it was weird but interesting.
Anyway, I left a note on the atheist Erik Dickerson's YouTube channel (username izbo10), letting him know that Skelly "butchered" him in the debate. Obviously izbo10 didn't take kindly to that characterisation of the debate, and here's our back and forth so far:
I would hope that we both agree its wrong to rip pregnant women's stomachs open, yet your god has zero problem with this. We would hopefully both agree slavery is wrong, yet your god again has zero problem with it. That makes your god an irrational explanation for morality, hence even if you take my argument from society off the table it does not mean its your god, its still very unlikely your disgustingly immoral god, could be the source of morality.
Your and his argument is not reasoned argumentation its a god of the gaps fallacy/argument from ignorance fallacy. Atheists don't know where morality came from, assert god, jump up and down like a ___ing moron thinking you won.
This does not make a good sound logical syllogism:
premise 1:Morality exists
premise 2:god is the only source of morality (nice assertion prove this jackass)
conclusion: god exists.
Its not a logical argument when i can do this
premise 1: morality exists
premise 2: pinky the invisible ___ing pink unicorn is the only source of morality(see i too can assert you jackass)
conclusion: pinky the invisible pink unicorn exists
See how that doesn't ****ing work, umkay unless you want to add the fallacy of special pleading to your list of growing fallacies.
asserting a reason for morality does not make it soOK. I'm going to keep this in mind for the future.
Here's an immediate example - you claim that ripping open pregnant women is morally wrong and use that as an argument against the God of the Bible (TGotB). Let me throw your own claim back at you now - asserting a reason for morality does not make it so.
And I'm not asserting a "reason for morality". I'm asking you what your BASIS for YOUR moral statements is. If you don't have one, then that's the same as saying "I like this action" and "I don't like this action". Kinda like "I like broccoli" and "I don't like broccoli". You like broccoli, I like child rape. No moral difference between the two, if your view is correct.
Fortunately, your view is NOT in fact correct - God has proscribed child rape but doesn't have a problem with eating broccoli.
when that reason contradicts what we know to be moralYou don't appear to be familiar with Hume's Guillotine aka the naturalistic fallacy. You've just run straight into it, so I recommend you read up on it. IS does not imply OUGHT. Reason can only tell you HOW to achieve a given end, not whether that end is right. For that, you'd need a moral foundation, a standard against which to judge. Christianity has one, an objective one. Atheism doesn't.
And don't you remember? Asserting a reason for morality does not make it so.
i stand by that a good portion of morality is determined by benefit to society,Which entirely begs the question. You need a standard against which you can compare actions to know that something is good for society. You don't just get to make unsupported assertions about "good for society". PROVE what is good for society. If your response resembles: "That which helps society cohere and survive longer and have economic and emotional prosperity", that begs the question. Prove that societal cohesion, survival, and prosperity are good things. Then you can go on to prove your assertion that society determines what is good.
Let me illustrate.
Situation: You are traveling in a foreign land and go to an out-of-the-way picturesque temple. There you meet a native, there to offer religious piety. He finishes lighting his candle and then greets you, speaking serviceable English. He introduces himself as Tkalim.
He offers to tell you a little about his religion. You, being the courteous gentleman you are, invite him to proceed. He tells you that he and his whole society worship 5 gods of the fish, air, earth, fire, and tree. He then tells you that part of his worship devotion is to go with all the men of his society to steal girls between the ages of 3-8 years from their families in the nearby large city, take them into the jungle, and rape them.
Once raped, the tribesmen leave the girls in the jungle as an offering to the tree god. He says he knows of no girl that has ever returned to the city to her family.
Once he finishes his story with calm voice and clear eyes, he falls silent.
I have something to say to him about this practice. What would YOU say? How would you try to explain that what he is doing is wrong? *Is* what he is doing wrong? On what basis?
Also, don't forget that asserting a reason for morality does not make it so.
I would hope that we both agree its wrong to rip pregnant women's stomachs open1) No, it is not always wrong. Don't beg the question at hand. Be specific.
2) I see no reason to think your position can substantiate "it is wrong to ____" statements. Prove it.
3) Did you forget? Asserting a reason for morality does not make it so.
your god has zero problem with this1) Another completely false statement. This is one of the reasons Skelly butchered you. You're not nearly specific enough. You know next to nothing about the Christian position.
2) Did you forget? Asserting a reason for morality does not make it so.
That makes your god an irrational explanation for moralityHahaha, oh, b/c He disagrees with your own morality? Make the argument, don't just assert it.
premise 1:Morality existsWow, yeah, that would be a lousy argument. I'm glad that's not my argument!
premise 2:god is the only source of morality (nice assertion prove this jackass)
conclusion: god exists
premise 2: pinky the invisible ****ing pink unicorn is the only source of moralityUh oh - you need to read this.
Consider it further education. The IPU/FSM arguments are shallow.
unless you want to add the fallacy of special pleading to your list of growing fallacies.Special pleading applies in the face of insufficient examination. As you can see, I've done plenty of examination of the IPU/FSM 'argument'.
If you're so interested in fallacies, answer your own viciously petitio principii and naturalistic fallacy arguments.
where my morality came from was a red herring argument avoiding the topic of "does the christian god exist" right?Actually, *you* brought it up in your 1st response to me, remember?
I quote: "I'd love to know how a guy who said morality came from god and then turns around and says its perfect to rip pregnant women's stomachs open with swords or its perfect to watch children get raped, butchered anyone. Just wondering?"
when i get home from work tonight be prepared to have this crap butchered umkayK.
You clearly haven't read the bibleOr maybe I'm questioning where you get off criticising anyone else for any action. Apparently this critique is going over your head.
I will quote my reasons for saying things like god has no problem with ripping pregnant women open with a sword straight from your good book.1) I'd be interested in seeing what psgs you mention. Does the context make clear that GOD IS COMMANDING SUCH? Or is God telling people what is going to happen at the hands of evil men? From my doublecheck just now, it looks like the latter.
2) Even if you could find a psg where God specifically commands that pregnant women be ripped open, don't you remember that asserting a reason for morality does not make it so?
3) Also, if you could find a psg like that, you said "God has zero problem with it", which is entirely inaccurate. What about the more general commands to people not to commit murder? Even one counterexample disproves your statement that God has ZERO problem with it. It would demonstrate that He has a least one problem with it.
So we'll see if you rise up to a higher level of argumentation. So far I'm not confident.
The topic was the christian god exists. Not Where do atheists morals come from?1) Then why'd you bring it up?
2) As a presuppositionalist, part of my strategy will be to show how atheism reduces to meaninglessness.
If you're interested in a tutorial on that, here you go.
My recommendation: 1) Control your emotions.
2) Profanity makes you look stupid, so stop it.
3) Engage my arguments, not what you wish my arguments were.
Now, keeping in mind the danger that izbo10 will read this post and learn enough to eviscerate my arguments, let me share a few thoughts on this.
-He has not yet shown any sign that he understands the TAG.
-He continually begs the question that he has an objective basis for morality, as should be obvious.
-I'm pretty sure (though open to correction) that while God ordained that pregnant women be ripped open, He never commanded anyone to do so. He merely predicted it. Any claim that ordination and command are the same thing merely shows his ignorance of the 2 wills of God. You may think that's gobbledygook, you may think it's meritless, but you need to make an argument to that effect, lest you burn down a strawman.
This situation strikes me as very similar to the case of rape in the Bible.
God ordained rape but never commanded it. The Bible records rape but that does not mean that God approves of it.
-One wonders if izbo10 disapproves of abortion, then. I forgot to mention that to him.
-If he responds "but abortion is OK if the woman consents", one wonders how he could morally justify that statement, that consent renders something permissible, whatever the action. I might agree in certain cases (though not in the case of abortion; for one thing, the baby was never inquired of) but I don't see how his worldview can justify it.
-Finally, the other reason I call his statement about "God has zero problem" wrong is b/c, even if God did command ripping open pregnant women at one or more specific times in the past, that is not at all the same as saying God has ZERO problem with it. Since God has commanded not to murder and not to commit abortion to all people NOW, that means that God does have a problem with it, and one is greater than zero.
I admit that izbo10 is somewhat of a low hanging fruit, but I'm entitled to an easy case once in a while, I should think.