How is euthyphro's dilemma "a threat to theism"?

I have never once come across a single atheist, myself included, that thinks the Euthyphro dilemma is an argument against the existence of a god.

It is an argument against the existence of a moral god.

And no, atheism is not based on emotional bias and rage against
religion. I used to be quite religious, and all my memories of my religious life, are pretty happy ones.

I now have a lot of negative feelings toward religion in general, due to its real world, mostly negative consequences. But I was an atheist long before I had these negative feelings.

My disbelief in the existence of gods, is purely based on the correct use of skepticism, applied to the god claim.

1 Like

a) I guess this forum is the wrong place to find those.
b) Isn’t that rather off-topic considering the topic for this “debate”?

Huh, how can that be?
How can the question “is god above or below morality” be an argument against a moral god?

Also, from the examples that I provided, wouldn’t you agree that at least the wikipedia article claims that it’s an argument against god?

I was responding to this post you made. You were the one who brought up the topic. Was it you or I who went “off-topic”?

We’ve had dogmatic atheists who approach the god belief from a claim of “it does NOT exist” (quite adamantly). I have held their feet to the fire in that any claim or assertion needs a high standard of evidence (speaking for myself only) to be convincing.

I have yet to be convinced of the existence of a god type being (let alone qualities given to it via man) as there has been no demonstrable, repeatable evidence for such a claim.

It does not mean I take an opposite view. It means I remained unconvinced.

For example- a jar contains marbles. Someone says “Hey! There are an even amount in that jar!”
I’m like “how do you know?” I’m NOT saying “No, there is an odd amount”. I just don’t believe you and state the obvious, until the jar is broken open and counted, it is unknown.

When I am approached with a “believe in god” (or whatever deity of choice or supernatural presence)… it usually comes with a bunch of string attached and a bunch of “what is wanted” in this life, from me in return for promises

Therefore, since it is going to cost me my time, action, life choices, world views, etc. IT better be true falsifiable evidence that has a demonstrable effect.

Otherwise, just strap me up with some explosives :firecracker:, take all my money :moneybag:, emotionally strangle me, and categorize me as less - all in the various god names.

1 Like

Specifically where in the Wiki article did it state this?

Because, as a human, I can only view the behavior of a god, in your case, the one depicted in the Bible, as it effects humans.

The god of the Bible: flooded the planet killing all but a couple of hands full of people, ordered Moses to kill everyone in various towns (except, of course the young virgins), killed the 1st born of Egypt, invented Hell, punished all of humanity for the behavior of 2 people who could not have known any better, and more…

From my human standpoint, that is all immoral behavior.

I am sure you would agree, that if a human dictator performed the same acts, you would consider him to be immoral.

The worst of all possible universes I could imagine living in, is one where the god of the Bible actually existed.

1 Like

Does that then not make you technically an Agnostic?

Ah yes, a very understandable position. I might like to converse with you about that but a) not in this topic, which (due to my blunder) has become rather off-topic) and b) you just about told me that you do not want to.
Let my just say that this economic, contractual viewpoint of religion (you give God A (which for some reason He needs) and you will get B in return) is horrible. I would not believe in such a God or religion either.

About a third of my far too lengthy OP is quotation form wikipedia. I will not repeat it again. You could go to the wikipedia page, but it’s not precisely shorter than my OP.
But you can quickly jump up to the first post and look at the second paragraph, which is the first quote that proves my point.

Nope. Agnostic refers to knowledge. Atheist refers to belief. I don’t have a belief in god because I am unconvinced of it’s existence. There is more evidence (lower standard than I set for myself) for alien abductions than for god, yet I wouldn’t say I believe in alien abductions. I wouldn’t call people who experience what they describe as an alien abductions as liars either - but I would wonder why they are perceiving their experience and describing it like that and I’d want falsability (other explanations rules out)…

3 Likes

But you lay claim to being Christian which by all accounts is this very recipe. Mind you, each theist tends to warp the god of their choice to fit their preferences.

1 Like

Ah sorry, maybe I did not express my question clearly enough.
I did not ask if you personally think that stories in the bible show something immoral. The question at hand is: How can the question “is god above or below morality” be an argument against a moral god.

Oh wait, now I said the exact same question again. How can I say it differently?
What I want to say is that I did not ask for your opinion based on something off-topic, but specifically if there is a connection between the dilemma and an argument.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive positions.

Atheism / theism concern BELIEF.
Agnosticism / gnosticism concern claims about KNOWLEDGE.

My position is, that I make no claims that I KNOW that gods do not exist, with absolute certainty. This defines me as an agnostic.

I also am not convinced that gods exist, so I disBELIEVE they do. This defines me as an atheist.

My atheism is not a dogmatic position. I am open to be convinced that a god exists. All it would take to convince me is: demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic, to support theist’s claims that a god exists.

The burden of proof lies with theists, not those of us that are unconvinced.

2 Likes

Sure. But why couldn’t you do that in 20 words or less?

2 Likes

Pretty stupid question to ask an Atheist. Morality is separate from religion. They are not mutually exclusive as morality has been around long before “religion” came into play. Believe it or not, there are Atheists who have more morals than Theists do.

2 Likes

Pretty telling, that among the most moral countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and other northern European countries) happen to have the highest percentage of atheist populations.

These countries all tend to have: lower violent crime rates, better health care, lower infant mortality rates, lower poverty rates, and rate higher on the societal health scales, than highly religious countries, the USA included.

1 Like

Albert Einstein quote …

If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.

If you are serious: could you explain this small snippet/proof in greater detail; because I’m having trouble comprehending it. It kind of smacks of gibberish; maybe it is missing something. :man_shrugging:t6:

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or deities?

So theism is a credible position, if you abandon or limit your reason?

Atheism is simply the lack of or absence of belief in any deity or deities, it is not a belief, assertion or claim, so there isn’t anything to disagree with.

Lacking a belief in anything does require any argument, the burden of proof is always with the belief, never with the lack of it. Though atheists may present arguments against theism, theistic expectations of atheism don’t in any way validate their belief.

Atheists need present no contrary argument to theism, this assumption is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

One can be both an agnostic and an atheist, since agnosticism is a belief about what can be known about a deity, and atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity. Do you generally believe claims you know nothing about?

Precisely so, in fact I’d be inclined to disbelieve any claim where nothing can be known about the that claim. in a scientific context all claims and ideas must be falsifiable, it’s a base requirement, and unfalsifiable claims are rejected as they are meaningless, often these are referred to as “not even wrong”, because demonstrating that something is wrong expands our knowledge.

1 Like

So there are stupid questions after all.
I do know that Atheists see morality as separate from god (or “religion” as you express it). But think about it: the question “which one is higher” would not even make sense, if they were not separate of each other.
So I invite you to step out of your idea that I’m somebody asking questions too stupid to answer and engage the question: How can this question (or possible answers thereon) be a “threat to theism”?