atheism is a (religious position)

[Mock Turtle]

But only humans act so absurd. They'll drink themselves to death, do drugs until they lose their job, their wife and family, and their health.
Go broke trying to keep up with the Jones', they think that what they wear or their title makes them worthy. They smoke cigarettes which has absolutely no benefit whatsoever, and only consequence.
Man, the highest capacity for intelligence, is less rational than the animal kingdom.

We are under a spiritual warfare: pride, greed, lust, envy, hedonism. Our battle is not about survival, but about selfish vanity and perversion.

Ah, the universal 'they'. Study statistics much - as to the percentages who do all that you claim?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sorry. I didn't repeat the earlier context. Yes, we can compare humans with other critters, I agree, but we can't conclude from any of that that we or they or just the penguins are our moral superiors or inferiors. Instead, we're what humans are, and the bonobos (mentioned above) and the penguins (which I just threw in) are respectively what bonobos, and penguins, are. They are better bonobos and penguins than we are, and we are better humans than they are.

So there's no objective basis for requiring human values from them, no point in asking if humans are good penguins.

Morality is based on two building blocks: a sense of justice/fairness and empathy. These traits are biological, and we can test to see to what degree they exist in other species. For example, we don't find empathy in snails, but we do find it in chimps. Do we find as much of it in chimps as in humans? No. But it is there in primitive form.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheists take for granted man's cognizance of morality, not realizing where this endowment came from. Why do only humans have it?

Because we are a social species that depend on cooperation with others.
All social species have a sense of morality. We wouldn't survive without it.
My well-being very much depends on your well-being / the well-being of the group.

Thus, God is the author of morality, for the knowledge of sin and righteousness cannot evolve from stardust and protoplasm.

"divine command theory" is a morally bankrupt moral philosophy.
It makes no sense and it has nothing to do with morality.
It confuses mere obedience to a perceived authority with moral reasoning.

It is the morality of psychopaths, who are unable of moral reasoning. They require an authority to tell them what is right or wrong instead.

And, no, there is no non human that has any religious inclination, whatsoever.

You mean: there is no human that has no tendency of magical / superstitious thinking.
I'll agree with it when formulated like that.

And, if you don't believe that, then take a dog to the same religious school that you went to, and see how edified or philosophical that he becomes.

Why would a dog reflect traits of human psychology?
That makes no sense at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know of no measure by which we could compare human behavior with any other species, not even our cousins the bonobos, who as you probably know incorporate copulation into social norms.

That's pretty ignorant.

The fact is that we are far more alike then we are different when compared to our primate cousins.

Humans like to think that creating a hubble space telescope is totally different from creating a termite catching stick.
The fact is that the underlying trait is in fact the exact same.
It's planning, it's intent, it's manipulating the environment and its resources to accomplish a predetermined goal.

In short: both are just toolmaking. The only difference is the sophistication of the tool.

 

[PureX]

It is a miracle only if one presumes a divine agency of some sort, and we have no reason to presume that. Worse, that makes the origin of the divine miracle maker itself an unexplained phenomenon. And that would mean that you have still left the existence of the universe and planet Earth ultimately unexplained, since its causal origin would be left unexplained.

By definition, a miracle is an unexplained fortuitous event. Which means that it does not automatically assume a "divine miracle-maker", as you have done. And the term does, in fact, describe our existence, here, accurately.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

By definition, a miracle is an unexplained fortuitous event. Which means that it does not automatically assume a "divine miracle-maker", as you have done. And the term does, in fact, describe our existence, here, accurately.

So, you think the definition of "miracle" being used by DNB in their argument in favour of belief in a God is the definition of miracle that has literally no theistic implication whatsoever?

 

[PureX]

So, you think the definition of "miracle" being used by DNB in their argument in favour of belief in a God is the definition of miracle that has literally no theistic implication whatsoever?

I think the term "miracle" has a theistic implication for theists. And an inexplicable implication to anyone else. Which is something you should consider, rather that dismiss out of hand. Existence is indeed a stunning miracle. How this miracle occurred is unknown. But it does indicate the likely possibility of some sort of supra-existential cause.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think the term "miracle" has a theistic implication for theists. And an inexplicable implication to anyone else. Which is something you should consider, rather that dismiss out of hand. Existence is indeed a stunning miracle. How this miracle occurred is unknown. But it does indicate the possibility of some sort of supra-existential cause.

Do you think that's how DNB is using it or not?

Because, if so, their argument makes no sense.

 

[PureX]

Do you think that's how DNB is using it or not?

Because, if so, their argument makes no sense.

The miraculous nature of existence does support DNB's belief in God. It doesn't prove it, and "God" is still just a label for an unknown entity, but it does support it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The miraculous nature of existence does support DNB's belief in God.

So their use of the term does explicitly implicate a theistic conclusion. So assuming it implies a divine miracle maker is an accurate assumption.

It doesn't prove it, and "God" is still just a label for an unknown entity, but it does support it.

"God" clearly isn't an unknown entity to DNB. They've been very specific.

And no, something being unexplained and fortuitous does not support the intervention of an unknown entity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But it does indicate the likely possibility of some sort of supra-existential cause.

How, exactly, does it indicate that? What makes it a "likely possibility"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The miraculous nature of existence does support DNB's belief in God.

How / why?

It doesn't prove it, and "God" is still just a label for an unknown entity, but it does support it.

in other words, it's an appeal to a mystery in an attempt to support an even bigger mystery?

How does that make any sense?

 

[PureX]

So their use of the term does explicitly implicate a theistic conclusion. So assuming it implies a divine miracle maker is an accurate assumption.

What is an "accurate assumption" in this case? How can anyone determine accuracy in this instance?

"God" clearly isn't an unknown entity to DNB. They've been very specific.

That's a different issue.

And no, something being unexplained and fortuitous does not support the intervention of an unknown entity.

Yes, it does support that possibility. It doesn't prove it, nor clarify what that means, but it does support it.

 

[PureX]

How, exactly, does it indicate that? What makes it a "likely possibility"?

Everything within existence as we experience and understanding it is resultant. Leading us to logically expect that existence, itself, is resultant. And whatever the cause, it would have to have been supra-existential by definition.

 

[PureX]

How / why?


in other words, it's an appeal to a mystery in an attempt to support an even bigger mystery?

How does that make any sense?

The mystery exists, and is a valid conundrum. Therefor, the solution exists as a valid expectation, even if we don't know what it is. Some label that solution "God" and envision it according to their preference. Some reject that label because they don't like the images associated with it.

Whatever. The mystery remains, and remains a valid question. The solution then remains a valid assumption as well, even if we have not ascertained it's content.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, it does support that possibility.

"It's inexplicable, therefor god!"

Classic argument from ignorance.

It doesn't prove it, nor clarify what that means, but it does support it.

No. At best, it is compatible with it.
Just like it is compatible with anything your imagination can produce that doesn't directly contradict it.
And that list of "possibilities" is literally infinite.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Everything within existence as we experience and understanding it is resultant. Leading us to logically expect that existence, itself, is resultant. And whatever the cause, it would have to have been supra-existential by definition.

That doesn't make any sense.
You are making a gigantic argument from ignorance here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The mystery exists, and is a valid conundrum.

IOW, it's an unexplained thing. An unknown.

Therefor, the solution exists as a valid expectation, even if we don't know what it is.

???

Some label that solution "God" and envision it according to their preference.

And they engage in a massive argument from ignorance when they do that.

Some reject that label because they don't like the images associated with it.

Or simply because they don't wish to engage in blatant logical fallacies...

Whatever. The mystery remains, and remains a valid question.

And until a proper explanation is given, the only valid answer is "we don't know".

The solution then remains a valid assumption as well, even if we have not ascertained it's content.

Only if you don't mind engaging in logical fallacies.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What is an "accurate assumption" in this case? How can anyone determine accuracy in this instance?

Yes, we can, because it's about the assumptions a person is making. We can determine, accurately, to what they are referring based on what they say.

That's a different issue.

Not when what we are discussing is DNB's use of the term "miracle" in an argument FOR their specific conception of theism. It's a very related issue.

Yes, it does support that possibility.

No, it does not. The lack of a credible explanation for a murder does not "support" the accusation that the Artist Formerly Known As Prince committed it.

It doesn't prove it, nor clarify what that means, but it does support it.

It doesn't. That logic doesn't follow.

 

[PureX]

"It's inexplicable, therefor god!"

Classic argument from ignorance.

Actually it's a logical proposition based on what we do know being applied to what we don't.

No. At best, it is compatible with it.
Just like it is compatible with anything your imagination can produce that doesn't directly contradict it.
And that list of "possibilities" is literally infinite.

If we try to fill in the content of this mystery source called "God", then yes. That's why it's a mystery. And guess what, we can do that if we want to. Imagining solutions in the face of the unknown has often led us to discover real solutions. It's kind of what we humans do.