Notice how the OP has posters continually chasing off on different topics?
Of course Euthyphro’s dilemma is a threat to theism because it is not one of accepting the bullshit religious leaders spout. Evolution is a threat, geology is a threat, science is a threat, critical thinking is a threat.
Every lie, every fantasy story, ever time a story is disproven by science is a threat to theism.
He also seems to have missed the irony of asking atheists, oughtn’t the question to be directed at those who believe in a deity in the first place?
I would contend that a far bigger threat to various brands of mythology fanboyism, is the demonstrable presence of absurd assertions within the requisite mythologies, of a sort that no genuine god type entity would allow itself to be associated with.
For example, Genesis 30: 37-39 consists, at bottom, of the assertion that genetics is purportedly controlled by coloured sticks. This was found to be a pathetic and risible lie by a 19th century monk, whose landmark scientific research not only taught us how genetics actually operates, but laid the foundations of modern genetics as a properly constituted scientific discipline.
The appearance of this frankly comical assertion leads, as a corollary, to the conclusion that if the requisite cartoon magic man ever existed, it was insufficiently “omniscient” to foresee the emergence of said 19th century monk and his diligent scientific experiments, and, for that matter, the emergence of every other scientist whose findings toss the assertions of pre-scientific mythologies into the bin.
Then we have the little matter of scientists discovering that the universe is fully nine orders of magnitude larger, and at least seven orders of magnitude older, than is asserted to be the case in Genesis. Bit of an embarrassment for the mythology in question there, I would have thought, even before we consider that Genesis is completely ass-backwards with respect to the order of emergence of various entities, as determined through diligent scientific analysis.
I would also consider the fact that scientists have been able to demonstrate that testable natural processes are sufficient to account for vast classes of entities and interactions, and thus render cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies superfluous to requirements and irrelevant, to be a lethal blow to mythology fanboyism in all its forms. Indeed, the authors of the requisite mythologies were incapable of even fantasising about those vast classes of entities and interactions, that have been placed by scientists into usefully predictive quantitative frameworks of knowledge, in a manner that mythological assertions and their authors have been completely unable even to begin matching.
By comparison, I would contend that Euthyphro’s Dilemma is a sideshow.
A point I have in my bumbling ineloquent way been trying to make from the start. The dearth of objective evidence to support a claim is surely a sufficient epistemological reason to withhold belief, but when claim after claim asserted to be the immutable and infallible word of an omniscient deity, is subsequently exposed as errant nonsense after a mere few hundred years of scientific scrutiny, then its claimed provenance can only be disbelieved.
I see no connection between the sentence that you quote and the comment that you give.
It implies that a loss of intellect can cause atheism.
As you (or somebody else in this thread) so aptly said, you regard atheism as the default position for which no proof nor reasoning is needed.
If that really is so, then all that stop thinking will become atheists. Oh, of course you also need to abandon tradition, because that would be something that can keep you on a higher level without the need to think it all through.
That indeed reflects what I have experienced with people. There are christian philosophers that think a lot and produce high-octane treatises which I have a hard time following. Many atheists (including those in this threat) appeal to emotion, reject the burden of proof, demand proof for God (which is a dead end of thinking) and complain when an argument is too long, quoting Einstein (wrongly) to “prove” that a person is wrong if he uses many words.
Now there are deep and smart atheist thinkers, but being an atheist does not make you smart nor does reason lead to atheism.
Of course everything that I say is a simplification. Neither my thoughts nor my words can fully grasp all of reality.
But in this particular case it seems rather indisputable. All those benefits (at least in Finland) where championed by christians at a time when the majority where regular church-goers. Do you have any evidence that the >90% lutheran church members in 1950 finnland were really atheists?
Oh, 40% (your number) is the majority?
I don’t quite follow your logic here. (Also I never even talked about “that idea”).
So there where christians that invented universities and hospitals, then those christians did not prevent some horrible wars. Then the christians that were left build nations based on christian virtues, while other countries (russia and china) build nations on atheist virtues. Those made by the christian values have florished while those of atheists have commited atrocities worse than the holocaust.
And now your argument is that the new generation that did not build any of this and rebel against their parents (leave the church against their wil) are somehow a proof that the good of these societies really are atheist values? Again, I am unable to follow your logic, but then again you just state your opinion. Or in your words:
care to demonstrate some objective evidence for this claim?
Well, that’s what I said. Why do you sound as if you were contradicting me?
OK, I said that there were ~60% christians. Then I said that many are not affiliated with a church but are spiritual. Since you don’t link that survey I don’t know if that was even an option, or if they conflated all that do not belong to a church to “atheist”.
Thanks again for engaging the question. You seem to be the only one. 
But I don’t know why you don’t see the logic in it. Do you see a logical error? If so, please elaborate.
I’ll try to simplify one more time:
Assumption A: X is bound by Y
Assumption B: Horn 2 means that X cannot be bound by Y
Conclusion: Horn 2 is not true.
I call A and B assumptions, because neither of them are part of the originial dilemma nor is any reasonable proof given for them.
OK. But you do realize that that is the answer that is debated in this threat, right?
And now you tell me that you are not interested in it?
Ironically your sentence before (“Christianity did not invent Morality.”) is quite on the spot. Because the Dilemma is asking precisely that question: Did God invent Morality or does he bow to it.
So when you say that the question is not relevant to you, then it seems to be so because you have made up your mind already and you are not going to debate it, not even in a “debate room” that asks that question.
YOU should increase your “intellect” by believing in all deities presented by humans. Also, YOU should believe in all positions for which proof nor reasoning is needed like Ogopogo or Loch Ness Monster, extra-terrestrials, ghosts and poltergeists, Satan worshipping mask wearing rituals, 666 chips in vaccines 
, reptilians wearing human skins, our virtual reality or time slips into multiverses…
BUT you’ve opted to share only one irrational belief - for all I know, you’re a genius by your standard or belief without proof for reason.
True
[quote=“Get_off_my_lawn”, post:54, topic:2211]
In other words, people were forced to, by law, to confess to christianity. Real christian values, in other words.
[\quote]
I don’t know why you are using sarcasm here.
You know as well as me that those are not christian values.
So how are the values at fault if people don’t apply them?
As a catholic I deeply regret the protestant reformation and the political repercussions. Also in Finland it was forbidden to be catholic into the 20th century.
I’m not even claiming that catholic countries did not do similar evil things.
And yet if you read christian writing and doctrine, it teaches the opposite.
So when I say that I’m christian, then I associate with those that believe in Jesus Christ and follow His word. I do not feel my faith challenged by people that act against Jesus’ words and are then retrospectively found evil.
Oh? So which one is it? The scandinavian countries were among the first to allow women voting, years before the other states. So is Norway now evil for being so lutheran that they allowed women vote so early?
Ah, but I guess you see it so that women’s right to vote has always been as important. You should realize (as Americans that might be difficult for you) that most countries in europe used to be monarchies. So voting for a democratic government was not so commen even for men. No, instead it was a rather new thing, and not as obviously evil as you now think of it in your emotional oversimplication. Life was different back then. Work before the industrial revolution was hard. Then there were the sweat shops. Going to work was a necessary evil and society (and the church) tried to keep women out of this drugery. Then came communists and said that men is first of all a worker, took babies away from their mothers and put them into work camps. Indoctrination told them that that was great. In today’s free countries work is more a fullfilling occupation than the small thread that stops you from starvation. So no need to keep women from work if they want to, but I agree with the church that the family is much more important than work.
And who invented these rules that make work so much better?
Haha, in the game Civilization you need to invent Communism before you can invent Labor Union (needed to build Mech Inf). For a long time I thought that Communism invented labor union. Instead you should see how the communists were so inhumane in poland that through bloody rebellion (unbloody where St. John Paul II was able to intervene) they forced the government to make concessions. Those are now called Labour Unions.
OK, these things are rather new. Indeed I agree that they are done by atheists and against the will of the church(es). I also happen to agree that (granting for your polemic way of showing them in the worst possible light) they are not good changes.
Now while the nations that were build on christian values have given us abundance and peace, these new things are yet unprooven. Sure, you think they are great, but the data is not yet in. Sexuality is causing huge problems in all countries.
I don’t think it is fruitful to debate that here, because you can only give me your morality and speculation, and I cannot give you much more than my morality and philosophical reasons. I see the data showing that secularization of marriage and abortion are great evils that are right now destroying our societies. You believe that once the atheists have won, we’ll live in a wonderful utopia. Even though I’d like to expand on my reasoning, I don’t see that this hostile environment would allow for fruitful debate on this topic.
For anybody interested in the topic I would suggest Matt Fradd and Trent Horn as great YouTubers to answer all your questions.
OK, guys. I’m very sorry, but I have to leave. There are about 5 of you, all bombarding me with all off-topic questions that just show how strong you already know that I am wrong.
I don’t find the time to answer to all of it and it’s just becoming worse, because we are getting more off-topic with each day.
I am fine with the insults, but from now on I will really focus only on the contributions that are on-topic.
On this I totally agree with David Killens, who says:
Notice how the OP has posters continually chasing off on different topics?
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence to support this assertion? Would this be true of theism by the way, can a loss of intellect (whatever that means) cause theism?
That is epistemologically and logically consistent, otherwise argumentum ad ingorantiam wouldn’t be a known logical fallacy. The burden of proof is always with the claim, theism like all beliefs is the affirmation of a claim. However just because I needn’t disprove or provide any reasoning in order to disbelieve the unevidenced claim a deity exists, does not mean I had to have suffered a loss of intellect to do so, and again I don’t know what you mean by loss of intellect here, what did this entail and how does it manifest itself beyond atheism? It strikes me as trolling.
That is a particularly stupid claim, and it is clearly a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.
Wow, another preposterously stupid claim, not all traditions are religious for a start. It also seems to contradict the idiotic claim that preceded it, but you may have just worded it poorly.
Well I’d need to see you demonstrate some evidence for your claim of course, before we rule out bias on your part, or an intellectual barrier to your seeing through woo woo word salad.
In my experience I have seen people, even those who ostensibly appear reasonably intelligent, fall for superstitious guff as if it is the pinnacle of intelligent reason.
This sentence contains some pretty blatant lies, and while I don’t wish to leap to conclusions, I suspect you may now be trolling. Theism is a belief, all beliefs are the affirmation of a claim, all claims carry a burden of proof, to demand someone falsifies a claim is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and therefore irrational by definition. To label a rationally consistent assertion as “dead end thinking” speaks for itself.
That’s a straw man fallacy, you seem to be going for some sort of record for the number of known fallacies you can post in a single post. I must tell you other theists, as I now have no doubt that that is what you are, and have lied in your profile, have set the bar for that pretty high.
[quote=“Fabian, post:65, topic:2211”]
So those are the only two options then, oversimplification that borders on sophistry or encompass the entirety of reality? Dear me… all you have done is repeat my objection back to me, without addressing your sophistry, then tack a straw man fallacy on the end. On the plus side, you are getting closer to that record.
I don’t believe you, please demonstrate some objective evidence for your claim.
I never made any such claim, so another straw man fallacy, and a reductio ad absurdum fallacy, but you’re edging closer to that record all the time.
Where I come form the word countries is a plural. that figure relates to just one country, dear oh dear.
I’m not sure what you want me to do about your inability to understand it, but it is as simple as I can make it.
A truly hilarious but also asinine over simplification. I’ll help you out here, your first error is that Russia was founded as a Christian country, not an atheist country, secondly the Soviet Union, which tried to consolidate it’s power over their people by abandoning the theism that had for centuries endorsed the power of the absolute rule of the Tsar, was also, like China, an autocracy.
Totalitarian dictatorships tend not to worry about individual human rights, and you might want to consider if that was more of a determining factor than atheism, by…oh I don’t know, seeing if countries that are theistic are always moral examples, or if countries that are predominantly secular are always immoral.
I’m afraid your religious propaganda is becoming more and more hilarious and ridiculous. Nevertheless you have failed to offer anything in defence of your claim that morality is derived from christianity and its traditions. Which also appears to be an absolute statement. Also there is no such thing as an atheist virtue, only virtues that an atheist may or may not possess, but by all means do tell us one, as an atheist your acumen will enthral me no doubt.
I already asked you to name any moral rectitude a theist is capable of that an atheist is not, you have not answered, though I am not surprised, Morality is not derived from christianity, as it demonstrably preceded it.
Another blatant straw man, as I have claimed nothing of the sort, the record edges ever closer.
I never made the claim, it’s a straw man fallacy you concocted. It may also be a reductio ad absurdum fallacy, you’re producing logical fallacies so quickly I’m struggling to keep up. Are you a teenage boy by any chance? Your posts have that kind of over confident and ignorant stridency one often sees teenage boys indulge.
Obviously “not many” is pretty vague, but ok, if you now want to pretend 40% is not many atheists, you might want to bear the same survey showed less theists at 34%. I’m no mathematician, but isn’t 40% more than 34%?
No you said “There are not so many actual atheists here.” The survey said that 40% were atheists, 34% theists, and 26% undecided. That would make atheism the majority.
Damn, every time I open my heart.
I indeed am missing the irony. I was pretty sure that when I do not understand how something is a threat to theism, I would ask somebody who agrees and not somebody who disagrees or probably also does not understand the reasoning.
But I will take up that idea and ask the question to an apologist.
And I guess I will accept this now as the most eloquent answer: Euthyphro’s Dilemma is a threat to theism, because everything is a threat to theism.
Or in his own words:
Not quite on par with the rest of the content in my philosophy podcast, but there it is…
I’ve read from too many people that I am too stupid to talk to. I will relieve you of my stupidity and not come back to this threat. I would have some words about this constant question of whether I believe if atheists can be moral, but the other topics have taken up 2 full hours today, so I can’t promise if I get around to answering that.
It seems unnecessary because I’m stupid and most of you know better than myself what I believe or should believe.
For anybody who is believes that one can fruitfully talk to me I guess you can PM on this forum.
How could you possibly know prima facie that anyone here agreed with the claim? I already explained multiple times that I am an atheist because no theist can demonstrate any objective evidence for any diety, why I would I need to worry about arguments against something that is completely unevidenced? Why would I think theism is threatened when I already disbelieve it?
Well it was you who stated morality is derived from christianity and its traditions, the inference is unavoidable.
The hyperbole is as pointless as the sophistry, it seems your ego is too fragile for debate where it meets contrary opinions or ideas. Though if memory serves most of the ad hominem came form you initially.
To emphasis the dubious logic contained:
The problem is, #1 and #2 being in contradiction does NOT logically mean #2 is false. Your conclusion is not logically valid. I don’t know what else to say. Wherever you got this “logic” from; you should reconsidered everything you got from that source.
For myself there is no dilemma. I reject the assertion and do not accept the presumption of “God invent…”
Did God jump on the chair or crawl under it? How many angels can fit on a pinhead?
Who’s the best superhero 🦸🏻♂️ Batman or Superman?
My boys have these types of dilemmas- sigh but fortunately they are outgrowing them.
What, me sarcastic? Never!
Sometimes you just grow tired of stubborn bovine fecal matter…
How is one to interpret it when christianity is imposed upon country after country, people after people, by force, with weapon in hand, under threats of violence, torture, death, being robbed of all your posessions, your house and village burned down, your family and friends taken hostages, and you risk all of the above if you are caught practicing whatever religion or cultural expressions the new christian overlords didn’t happen to like? Isn’t that just the practical application of christianity, as applied all over the world for a couple of thousand years? If that isn’t the real christian way of doing it, then “real christian values” does not make any sense, as they are mere theoretical constructs that are not applied in practice. The christian churches, their representatives, and the religion and its teachings are inseparable from how it is implemented in practice. In theory, communism can be viewed as a rather nice idea, but every attempted implementation has gone horribly wrong. Thus, one can conclude that communism (in the actual implementations) can not be implemented (so far) according to the theoretical construct (let’s disregard the perverted meaning of the word as understood in the USA), and that these practical implementations are not nice ways of organizing a society. Does theoretical construct of “real christian values” somehow excuse the implementation chosen by the churches and clerical caste over the millenia?
So practice does not reflect the claimed teachings, despite the practitioners bashing their bibles and preaching the values they do not implement. What good are those teachings when they are hardly ever implemented by the very forces that promote them?
You miss the point. The church and clerical caste fiercely opposed women voting. Above you lament the non-implementation of christian values, now you ignore the fact that churches and priests and religious people actually tried to implement what the bible teaches (that women are inferior to men, and that they should just shut the fuck up and don’t speak in public). So which one is it? Should women have voting rights or should they just stay silent, as the bible teaches? Women’s voting rights came to be despite the christian church, christian values, and christians(*), not because of them.
(*) of course there would be some priests, some christians that were pro women voting, so it’s not categorically black/white here. But the trend was clear, and does not change my conclusion.
It was mainly the worker’s movement and trade unions that pushed for the implementation, and they were mostly secular with secular values. It was definitely not the church and its “christian values” that were behind it. Churches and their teachings are mostly always lagging behind when there are socetial changes, only changing when their teachings and practices are too horribly out of sync with how society actually works.
Spoken like a true christian. Instead of letting consensual adult homosexuals live together in peace, the church and the christians would rather force them to live a life pretending to have a sexual orientation they don’t have, and feel shameful about it, to the point of inducing depression and mental illness on them, and even suicide. Is that your true “christian values” – to force people to comply? Why not just let people love whoever they want to love, instead of forcing them to pretend to love someone they don’t?
Remember that the “christian values” that the nations were built upon were forced upon them by force. And the abundance we see is due to exploitation of the colonies (you know, the lands with those infidels that the oh-so-magnicifent church and christian countries considered to only be worthy of using as slaves, using christianity as an excuse). It is true that we saw an initial decrease in wars in Europe after christianization, but that was NOT due to “christian values” but due to politics. Christian nations chose to trade and make allies with other christian nations, and make war against non-christian nations. Once all of Europe was christianized, the wars between individual christian nations started. And the christian nations started to look outside Europe to find non-christian countries to plunder. So no, christianity and “christian values” are no guarantee for peace.
And exactly what huge problems do sexuality cause “in all countries”?
In what way is allowing homosexuals to marry and live together destroy societies? Would it be better to suppress it and force homosexuals to live together with someone they do not feel sexually attracted to, or to not live together with someone at all, and instead find their love in secret, through clandestine channels? Really? Don’t you get other problems by doing that, like higher suicide rates, higher rates of depression, etc.?
Do NOT put words in my mouth. And no, I don’t believe it is ever possible to create a “wonderful utopia”. What we can do is to minimize the evils and pain inflicted on people, and maximize happiness. On the average. There will always be some amount of evil and pain etc., but we should do what we can to minimize those.
No. Atheism is not a threat. It never has been.
As for your other questions. I’m an Atheist. That should have answered 99.9% of your Christian hypothetical questions at the start. I don’t think that your “deity” or any other deity exists. So therefore I don’t think your deity or any deity for that matter ever invented morality. You’re wanting me to talk about your god like it exists and I’m not going to humor you.
No. Those Theists got butthurt and left because we didn’t validate their beliefs. Me personally, I think you ought to stay. See things more from our perspective.
I personally think Christianity has fucked up society with misinformation and passing around silly supernatural beliefs in a god and a phrophet whom you have no evidence. Your hands are empty.
I think it’d be great if Atheism took over. All religions are bullshit and cause more problems than they solve.
We wouldn’t have to listen to anymore Christian superstitious bullshit. That means less judgmental and sanctimonious people like you who believes in superstitious nonsense who hates on homosexuals and non believers. Christianity teaches a lot of people to hate and control others. Go look in the mirror.