Nobody, not even theists have a clear cut source of morality. Some people have just convinced themselves they do.

I say let them try to troll. One of the best things about this subreddit is to show how damaging theism can be and there’s no better demonstration than letting them make a fool of themselves.

Gotta love when Christians are so brainwashed they don’t even know they’re Christian.

You are mistaking appropriate criticism with pedantry. Either that or you’re doing a bad job at dodging your own burden of proof. Either way your refined statement has now undone your whole position. You are now leaving the same room you were criticizing OP for leaving.

Not claiming anything and I don’t even believe there is more to consciousness than the brain. But I would never claim that consciousness can only come from a brain because I cannot prove that.

I am not a troll, all I’m doing is pointing out that you are making claims you cannot demonstrate the truth of. Even if all of the evidence points to one thing, does not mean more evidence could not show otherwise in the future. You have essentially committed what is known as the black swan fallacy.

Those who claim that there can be consciousness without a brain would have adopted a burden of proof. However you have as well by claiming that identity and the self is necessarily connected to the brain. This is why I asked my previous question. Is your claim that you are unable to prove a negative an admission that you cannot meet your burden of proof?

How can you determine that there is no consciousness without a brain? Also their discussion is in direct reference to a proposed afterlife. If you don’t think the topic should be discussed why even comment at all?

How do you distinguish between your definition and OP’s? The definitions as stated are not mutually exclusive.

The problem is when you say those claims wouldn’t have been known, that is something you would also need to demonstrate. How can you determine that there was absolutely zero way they couldn’t have known these things naturally? And if they could have, wouldn’t a natural explanation be more likely than a supernatural one?

Some honest advice: if your methodology is flawed, just let it go. It is perfectly okay to say “I don’t know “ until you do find a better methodology that lets you find out.

You failed to provide a methodology. You’ve simply claimed that you can determine that they could not have possibly come up with it. How have you determined this? How do you know it could not have possibly been the case that they could have come up with these claim on their own, or through methods other than the supernatural?

Sounds like you just think you’re already right without having looked into this topic even a little bit. You’re embarrassing your side. Either make your case properly or quit while you’re way behind.

But again the amount of true statements does not make that last unfalsifiable one any more likely to be true. Each claim must be examined individually.

On top of this what is your method for determining if anyone at the time could not have come up with that? How could you even know you’ve ruled out all other possibilities.

Sure but certainly not an accident.

Not really making the case for the imperium there.

If you truly believe there’s a single definition of moral values, you’re not ready for these kinds of conversations.

True but it’s a thousand a day.

Yes those thousand psykers keep disappearing by accident.

But if a book has 9 true things written in it could it not also have 1 false thing in it? Verifying other parts of the book does not prove the part we are looking for is true. If your claim is that we are currently incapable of knowing the truth of this person’s existence, then saying “I don’t know” is the most honest thing to do?

I’ve never heard this be used as an argument by atheists before. How does that argument usually go?

Also if our only source is scripture, than wouldn’t it be on you to demonstrate that the scripture is true to show he existed?

You said you’d only copy and paste if I went “nuh-uh”. What did I say in my last response that you interpreted as me saying “nuh-uh”?

Well I guess I’m just talking to a wall but in the off chance you are still reading, you have made many attempts to dodge and evade addressing the topic we were discussing. This is clearly just another example of that.

Some advice for the future, if you plan on making your opinions public, make sure you can actually defend your position. Even if you’re correct, an inability to express why is crucial to having these kinds of conversations.

I think the issue here is that you think I’m actually saying you are in fact wrong. I may be trying to get you to reach that conclusion but I’m not actually making that claim. I just want you to demonstrate that your claim is true. If you feel satisfied with your answer then fine. But I’ve explained how you have not addressed the actual question and thus you continuing to assert that you have is dishonest.

See this is the problem. You think all I’m doing is “nuh-uh”. But in reality you keep making claims without justification. And all you’ve done now is move the goalpost. You are just claiming that it is the case that it is more severely punished because of moral reasons. You have to demonstrate that this is actually the truth within the law.

Your claim was that the reason rapists are legally punished is a moral one. Drawing a connection between morality and the law in no way demonstrates the truth of your claim.

Fun fact: in many areas (including yours I’m willing to bet), the legal standard is “innocent until proven guilty”. This means it is on the prosecution to make the case that they are guilty. So if they do not make the case and simply assert that the defendant is guilty, nuh-uh would be an adequate response. So until you can make your case, I’ll continue to point out that you have no case.

What you are doing now is called a shifting of the burden of proof. It is on the one who has made the claim to demonstrate that it is true. It is not my job to demonstrate you are wrong when you cannot offer any reason to think you could be right.