UPDATE:: ADDENDUM:: And the BS continues

So after posting my response yesterday, Paulogia published this video addressing, 

"Without God, you can have no basis for truth," says Eric Hovind, Sye Ten Bruggencate and other presuppositional apologists. But is this true? Can we make sense of truth without a god?

Which goes to my point in regards to my commentors copy-pasta from Matt Slick https://carm.org/what-is-wrong-with-subjective-morality. Matt works from a presuppositionalist view that god exists therefore morality exists. He assumes, as do you, that morality needs some powerful authoritarian being to exist.  The gist of the argument is that, without someone to enforce the rules, we’re in a free-for-all.

and highlighted this comment

De4thHunter117 To loosely quote Thunderf00t: We only need 3 basic Axioms 1. The universe exists 2. We can learn something about this universe (truth exists and we can learn the truth) 3. Models with predictive capability are better than models without

_____

Atheist,do not support a god neither,but you have a problem with a fairytale “choosing” to take the life of its imaginary creation ..I hope you see how ridiculous that sounds .

Nice strawman,,, That's because you do not seem to be understanding the nuance of the argument put forth, ie the ability of argument from both perspectives. Christians claim god, christians entire world view is centered on that belief and dictates from the bible. IOWs there are legislators passing exclusionary laws based in that world view. I do not accept the christian (nor any religious) claim of god and by default will argue against said legislation if warranted.

IOWs I have an issue with religionist arguing from a religious "worldview" when the bible demonstrates a contrary view (see Numbers 5:11-22; Numbers 31:15-18; Hosea 9:14; Hosea 13:16; 2 Kings 15:16; 1 Samuel 15:3; Psalms 137:8-9)

Belief that "a human being exists at conception" is a matter of faith, not fact; your own bible states as such, Genesis 2:7.Legislating antiabortion faith would be as immoral and unAmerican as passing a law that all citizens must attend Catholic mass!

The bible does not condemn abortion; but even if it did, we live under a secular constitution, not in a theocracy. The separation of church and state, the right to privacy, and women's rights all demand freedom of choice. Our laws, our rights, come from the Constitution which is a secular document with no preference given to any religion. Some christians believe the bible trumps the Constitution giving them special rights. They are mistaken, there is no deity, book, or doctrine that usurps the Constitution. End of story.

A woman's right to abortion was deemed legal in 1973 based on privacy concerns. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion. Later, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court rejected Roe's trimester framework while affirming its central holding that a woman has a right to abortion until fetal viability.

It’s none of your/our business, yet you protest/ advocate one life over another, (namely the woman/mother)..You don’t see that you just stepped on the Christian worldview platform “I don’t support abortion” then stepped back onto the atheistic platform to support the woman’s right to choose ..It would be insane if Christians were advocating the death of the mother over the child, but We see value in both, atheist see value in 1 life, the other is “Sacrificed” on the alter of convenience, (which I’ve gathered is ridiculous according to atheist when The son of God did this) smh

Again nice strawman!! I stated, “I do not "support" abortion, I support a woman's right to choose.” You are either not understanding my position, or intentionally misrepresenting what I state.

You are correct, it is none of my business nor is it yours what a woman chooses to do in regards to the abortion discussion or any medical decision. As I stated, that is between the woman and applicable parties as stated above. It is a private matter that Roe v Wade addressed. What is my business, that a woman has the right to make her own choices which Roe v Wade affirmed.

You are obviously not familiar with the cases of Savita Halappanavar, or the Paraguayan girl ( J.S.P. ) whom both died due to lack of access to an abortion. Or the older case of Sheila Hodgers, all three died because religionists were advocating the death of the mother over the child by denying access to abortion based on religious ideology.

While I do not know your personal beliefs, you state, “We see value in both,,,” is a bunch of bullshit. IF that where true, then you and your ilk would not be opposed to proper sex education being taught in schools. You and your ilk would not be opposed to proper preventative measures being readily available. You and your ilk would be doing everything to prevent unwanted or unplanned pregnancies.

Generally speaking, those in opposition to the Christian worldview, often say that reducing harm is the universal moral standard because that is what people want. They don't like being harmed. But, we have to ask what makes what people want morally right? If they say that that is just the way it is, then we can say that it's just the way it is that there are moral absolutes.  For the moral relativist, all that is left is for him to chase his own tail and never get anywhere.  Furthermore, when reducing harm is the standard all that people have to adhere to, then the moral relativist is appealing to a universal moral standard. But that means they are appealing to something outside of themselves which contradicts their subjective morality.  All that is left for them is to continue chasing their own tail and never solve the problem that subjective morality necessitates.

Nice copy-pasta from Matt slick BTW https://carm.org/what-is-wrong-with-subjective-morality. Now please explain what Matt is saying here in your own words.

You see Matt works from a presuppositionalist view that god exists therefore morality exists. He assumes, as do you, that morality needs some powerful authoritarian being to exist.  The gist of the argument is that, without someone to enforce the rules, we’re in a free-for-all. 

But, the atheist’s morality is not dependant on authoritarian edict. It is intrinsic. Morality can only be morality if it is done for the goodness of its own sake, not because it was given by an authority figure.

You see, morality has an is evolutionary aspect to. Not just biologically but socially as well. We have learned as a species that causing harm (murder, rape, theft, etc) is wrong. That these actions do not benefit our survival as a species or individual. A community has better chance at survival than an outcast member.

For example, killing another person is detrimental to society at large; the tribe has one less person to help or defend it, and possibly a slew of extra strife between friends and family of the victim vs. those of his/her killer. In the modern ers, law enforcement is not perfectly efficient nor cost effective for society. Morality provides an additional barrier against criminal behavior.

Another way of looking at what Slick proposes,

• The argument presupposes God without first establishing God's existence.
  
• There are explanations for the origin of morals other than "Goddidit".
  
• God's actions aren't exactly what most people would classify as leading by example.

Atheist profess to reject the existence of their creator; They claim we live in a non-personally guided & ungoverned cosmos; That our ancestors were fish; that we’ve evolved from, highly evolved societies of bacteria; That we’re stardust in a universe, with no divine-justice ahead of any of us..We are fundamentally bipedal-Protoplasm, with only sky above us..
 

Again you and Matt do not seem to understand what atheism entails. It is a rejection of your claim that a god exists. It makes no claims to the origin of the universe, or man. You are again creating a strawman.

Watch for inconsistency.. is the person acting consistently with his/her worldview, that they say they’re standing on? Is one side forced to abandon their platform, or worldview, in an attempt to borrow/steal truths and concepts from the other, that do not comport with their own professed view of the world?
 

In other words, in order for the atheist to even deny the existence of God, she must borrow from the Christian worldview to do so. But why is the atheist borrowing from the Christian worldview? According to the presuppositionalists, only the Christian worldview can explain why reasoning is even possible. How, they ask, could rational dialogue exist if the universe began, expands, and exists by chance? How can chance account for immaterial, universal laws of logic?
 

This is all presuppositional twaddle. You are making assertions based in the existence of god, not arguments. You are asserting god exists which you have not demonstrated. Your assertions only works if one were to accept your specific worldview is true. A point I reject as do other sects of christianity.

As to Deb's statement concerning trinitarian belief, there is no consensus among christians. Some believe in the trinity some do not. The developed doctrine of the trinity is not expressed in the NT and was not developed until Ignatius of Antioch provides early support for the Trinity around 110 CE and finalized in the early 3rd century by the early church father Tertullian.