The argument..."your god, your religion, your views"

[A Theist]

I've noticed a recurring theme. Lets say you are debating a skeptic about God, or Christanity, or the Bible. The first argument they start with is...

Purely and entirely subjective. Your morals, your god, your religion, your reality. Stop telling other people what to do and what to think.

I'm sure we've all seen this posted before. So lets say a Christian is against something and quotes the Bible or says God has this view and this view they say God has is supported in the Biblical texts. How does the skeptics argument (in bold) invalidate it? They use it all the time, just because the skeptic states the above bolded argument, does not mean my view is no longer valid.

Do you agree? For me if you want to invalidate an argument of a Christian you have to prove..

A) Christianity is not true

B) That God does not hold the views in the BIble because the Bible is just a "book"

C) Show that God supports your view.

[tinythinker]

It doesn't invalidate you having that view it is an argument against imposing it on others. If someone said we should change the Constitution and cited a teaching from Hinduism or Islam I think many Christians would use the same argument as the skeptic.

[Metacrock]

It doesn't invalidate you having that view it is an argument against imposing it on others. If someone said we should change the Constitution and cited a teaching from Hinduism or Islam I think many Christians would use the same argument as the skeptic.

Yes, I think the, shall we say, valid(?) version says "you can't impose this on others," it's not a problem if hold it becuase you do have the right to decide your own beliefs. But I do think many atheists see subjectivity as an all purpose put down or dismissal that they just dash off because they can't make a rational argument anyway.

[A Theist]

That's just it, they use that argument as if to say "you have no argument because your belief is a bunch of hooey." It's like they are using it as an automatic win so they don't have to debate. In their view if they stop the debate before it really begins they feel they've won.

[met]

That's just it, they use that argument as if to say "you have no argument because your belief is a bunch of hooey." It's like they are using it as an automatic win so they don't have to debate. In their view if they stop the debate before it really begins they feel they've won.

as opposed to THEIR pov's which are based on 'reason" and are therefore not . . .

Purely and entirely subjective. Your morals, your god, your religion, your reality. Stop telling other people what to do and what to think.

which then gives THEM the right to go around "telling other people what to do and what to think". . .

Like that? is that what you mean?



If so, funny cuz I thought Alvin Platinga already dealt with that one . . .

[Metacrock]

That's just it, they use that argument as if to say "you have no argument because your belief is a bunch of hooey." It's like they are using it as an automatic win so they don't have to debate. In their view if they stop the debate before it really begins they feel they've won.

exctly!

[Metacrock]

That's just it, they use that argument as if to say "you have no argument because your belief is a bunch of hooey." It's like they are using it as an automatic win so they don't have to debate. In their view if they stop the debate before it really begins they feel they've won.

as opposed to THEIR pov's which are based on 'reason" and are therefore not . . .

Purely and entirely subjective. Your morals, your god, your religion, your reality. Stop telling other people what to do and what to think.

which then gives THEM the right to go around "telling other people what to do and what to think". . .

Like that? is that what you mean?



If so, funny cuz I thought Alvin Platinga already dealt with that one . . .

where?

[tinythinker]

It doesn't invalidate you having that view it is an argument against imposing it on others. If someone said we should change the Constitution and cited a teaching from Hinduism or Islam I think many Christians would use the same argument as the skeptic.

Yes, I think the, shall we say, valid(?) version says "you can't impose this on others," it's not a problem if hold it becuase you do have the right to decide your own beliefs. But I do think many atheists see subjectivity as an all purpose put down or dismissal that they just dash off because they can't make a rational argument anyway.

Part of that comes from the fact that many Christians (especially online) are really pushy and dismissive. Many atheists feel Christians are trying to impose their beliefs on them, from know-it-all forum posters to Young Earth Creationists to political figures like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Sharon Angle. Keep in mind that on the forums some of the Christians that atheists run into insist that all other views are wrong and inferior and everyone should believe the same thing, so in some discussions successfully arguing that a Christian's views are subjective is a refutation of what some Christians claim.

[met]

That's just it, they use that argument as if to say "you have no argument because your belief is a bunch of hooey." It's like they are using it as an automatic win so they don't have to debate. In their view if they stop the debate before it really begins they feel they've won.

as opposed to THEIR pov's which are based on 'reason" and are therefore not . . .

Purely and entirely subjective. Your morals, your god, your religion, your reality. Stop telling other people what to do and what to think.

which then gives THEM the right to go around "telling other people what to do and what to think". . .

Like that? is that what you mean?



If so, funny cuz I thought Alvin Platinga already dealt with that one . . .

where?

. . . . in his arguments about what is or isn't 'properly basic' to believe??

[Metacrock]

Plantinga did not invent proper basically.