This Should Piss Off Religious Twits

[CliveStaples]

Christians are the ones making the claim that morality comes from the bible, therefore they are making the positive claim.

"Positive" or "negative" is irrelevant. Anyone who makes a truth claim has the burden of supporting their claim.

Here, someone has claimed that a particular proposition cannot be proved true from a given set of assumptions. That's a strictly logical claim, and the person who made it has the burden of support/proof.

As for modern laws, I doubt any christian countries and many Islamic countries have a legal code that perfectly mirrors the rules found in their respective book.

But that's not the claim.

The fact is that there is no evidence for the claim that morality comes from religion, and there is evidence for morality coming from evolution. Just think, you ignore bits of the bible that you think are outdated/wrong which means you have morals that are independent of your own holy book. All evidence suggests that morality is not absolute; for example, slavery was OK less than 200 years ago, but its seen as despicable nowadays. The moral code found in religious books will all someday be out of date, so how likely is it that any of them gave you your morality?

But evidence isn't at issue. The question is whether one can derive certain moral values from religion. Whether morality is absolute, when and where certain moral beliefs were held...this is all irrelevant.

The claim is that if you start with any religion in the world, you cannot through logical and reason derive from them certain moral values. That's the claim at issue. The fact that "slavery was OK less than 200 years ago" is irrelevant.