atheism is a (religious position)

[PureX]

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



???



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



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



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


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

You're so intent on arguing that you're missing the obvious logic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

No. It's a classical argument from ignorance.

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.

No, it's not.

Real solutions are discovered through leads / evidence and subsequent testing.
Not by engaging in logical fallacies.

 

[PureX]

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.


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.


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 supports the contention that an unknown being we choose to call "Prince" did it, because someone was killed unjustly and unnecessarily by intent, and only humans do that. We may not know who this "Prince" is, or why or how it murdered someone, but we can logically contend that it did.

It's not an argument from ignorance.

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

Just because you don't want to follow it doesn't mean that it doesn't follow.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're so intent on arguing that you're missing the obvious logic.

Or you are so intent on trying to rationalize your beliefs that you're missing the obvious logical fallacy?


It's really simple: the unexplained is never evidence FOR anything!

To argue that it is evidence FOR something, anything, is textbook argument from ignorance.

"We don't know, therefor X!"

Textbook.


I could go even further..... you posit this god as a valid possibility. But you have never established it as an actual possibility. You just declared it so.
Things aren't "possible" by default.

For something to be an actually valid possibility, you actually require a demonstration of it as being possible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It supports the contention that an unknown being we choose to call "Prince" did it, because someone was killed unjustly and unnecessarily by intent, and only humans do that. We may not know who this "Prince" is, or why or how it murdered someone, but we can logically contend that it did.

It's not an argument from ignorance.

This is ridiculous.
An unsolved murder is committed by an unknown murderer, by definition of being unsolved.
And it has a murderer, by definition of being a murder.

You are just stating the obvious here. There is no "supporting" anything here. There is just what the word "murder" means.

And in this case, it's a false equivocation as well... because to label a death a "murder", it already implies that there is quite some stuff that is actually KNOWN about the death: that it wasn't suicide, that it wasn't an accident, that it wasn't a natural cause,... But instead that there was malicious intent and purpose to the act.

That's VERY different from an unexplained phenomenon in physics, biology, etc.

 

[blü 2]

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.

Yes, different critters are equipped with different 'moral' responses, and more so if they live in groups.

And according to research, humans are born with moral tendencies for child protection and nurture, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial. We've also evolved a conscience and a capacity for empathy. All these are handy for living in groups and gaining the benefits of cooperation. The rest of our morality ─ how to interact with family, relatives, the opposite sex, friends, neighbors. strangers, authority figures, the right observances for coming of age, marriage / pairing, birth, death ─ and so on ─ is learnt behavior.

 

[blü 2]

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.

You'd make a very poor rabbit, judged by another rabbit. A very poor meerkat, judged by another meerkat. You wouldn't be any good as a penguin, or a mouse, or a leopard, judged by another penguine or mouse or leopard. That's to say, the evolved instincts for being each species is appropriate to that species. It's irrelevant whether we like or dislike aspects of them by our human standards. Sure, we can make lists of similarities and differences, but it will be a human judgment whether those differences (in particular) are 'good' or 'bad'.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, unless your talking about the misguided or insincere Christians.

Ah, the No True Scotsman Fallacy. You're really big on logical fallacies, aren't you?

Christians are better people morally than atheists - you have no absolute moral code -

Christian's don't exercise morality. They just do what they're told by some "absolute" authority. Just obeying orders.

half of you don't believe that fantasizing about the opposite sex is wrong, or even being promiscuous.

No, I don't think thought crimes are immoral. We've all thought of things we'd never actually do in real life, I'm sure. And thoughts aren't really something that can't be controlled in such a manner.

Yes, everyone know that killing, kidnapping and abuse is wrong. But, who knows that turning the other cheek is better than retaliating, or that it's better to give than to receive, or that sex is only for marriage, or that drugs and intoxication is wrong, etc...

Who says turning the other cheek rather than retaliating is always the most moral choice? Should we have turned the other cheek to Hitler and the Nazis?

"Sex is only for marriage" is a religious precept, based on the writings of ancient peoples whom are claimed to speak for god(s), with no evidence of such whatsoever. And no demonstration that it's actually immoral.

"Drugs and intoxication" isn't immoral on its own, unless someone is being harmed.

The system of morality I follow is based on humanism. The goal of morality, in my opinion, is to maximize the well-being of sentient creatures. Actions that result in that, are moral actions and actions that result in the harm of sentient creatures, are immoral actions. These will be dependent upon the situation. For instance, lying can be moral in one situation, like say, if you're hiding Anne Frank in your attic and the Nazis coming looking for her, the most moral action in that situation would be to lie to the Nazis. In other situations, lying can be immoral, like if you told your spouse you loved them and are faithful to them, while simultaneously having a love affair with another person.

Your code is much too subjective and naive - we go to the holy Creator for direction, for the world and all its constructs are corrupt and desensitizing.

Your code is subjective - it's literally based on the whims of a god. Whatever that god says is good is good, and whatever that god says is bad, is bad. There is no weighing out of moral decisions as to the consequences of their actions on ourselves and those around us. Nope, just do what the god says!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You'd make a very poor rabbit, judged by another rabbit. A very poor meerkat, judged by another meerkat. You wouldn't be any good as a penguin, or a mouse, or a leopard, judged by another penguine or mouse or leopard. That's to say, the evolved instincts for being each species is appropriate to that species. It's irrelevant whether we like or dislike aspects of them by our human standards. Sure, we can make lists of similarities and differences, but it will be a human judgment whether those differences (in particular) are 'good' or 'bad'.

I didn't say anything about "good" or "bad".

I'm just saying that we are far more alike then humans in general realize. Or in case of theists, who have religious incentive to believe they are "more" or "better" or "special" as compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, would like to believe.

Many, if not most, of the things that humans like to think are "uniquely human" are in fact not exclusive to humans at all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

ask yourself why your selfish, not 100% honest, lustful, aggressive, etc...

Speak for yourself. I strive to be as honest with the people in my life that I possibly can be.
I am not aggressive, though I'm not sure that's immoral, all on it's own.
Not sure why being "lustful" is so immoral. It's one of the tools we used to seek out potential mates.

Can you explain how this addresses my question about how we're supposedly created in the "image of god" and yet, somehow at the same time, we're horrible, awful, lustful, terrible, dishonest, wretched creatures? Is god a horrible, awful, terrible, dishonest wretched creature? If not, which god are we designed in the image of then?

Do you like yourself overall - I'm scared to ask.

For the most part, yes.

Do you think man has been a good steward on this planet, to the earth and his neighbour?

Most of us, yes. Those of us who really do care, try our best to convince others they should care as well.

Why do smokers who know that they should stop, still smoke. Or dieters the same thing?

I'm pretty sure I've already explained this.

Perhaps you should look up some information on addiction and it's effects on the body and brain.

We're all not 100% depraved, I just used the extreme to make a point.

What point?

But why do we defy the moral codes that we know are right, why don't we treat our neighbours as ourselves. For a myriad of different reasons, but every single oner of them says that it's our fault.

Instead of answering the question I asked, you appear to just be doubling down again. I don't treat my neighbors like crap, do you?

So, it is not beyond us to do good, we see it all the time, everywhere. Therefore, God did not create us helpless to avoid or desist sin - both aptitudes are always present.

Which choice will we make, and why.

You've repeatedly claimed that humans are wretched, horrible, awful creatures. At the same time, you claim that we're created in the image of god. I asked how how you reconcile these two things.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Not this atheist. This atheist realizes that human beings have to co-exist on this planet together, whether we like it or not. So we have no choice but to come up with a system of morality that causes the least harm to humans and other sentient creatures.

Humans aren't the only creatures with a sense of morality, by the way. Dogs have it. Dolphins have it. Chimps have it. Lots of other creatures have it.

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

You say "thus" as though this follows from what you just said. It doesn't.

Sin is a religious term that has no meaning for me. It's based on archaic and outdated modes of thinking from a time long gone and far removed from the world we live in today.

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

Who cares? What's the relevance?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It supports the contention that an unknown being we choose to call "Prince" did it, because someone was killed unjustly and unnecessarily by intent, and only humans do that. We may not know who this "Prince" is, or why or how it murdered someone, but we can logically contend that it did.

Do you think that when DNB refers to "God" they are referring to "an unknown being" or do you think they are referring to a specific thing that they have a distinct definition for? Because it's pretty obvious it's not the former.

It's not an argument from ignorance.

Yes it is. "God" is not another word for "we do not know". It's evoking a specific agent.

Just because you don't want to follow it doesn't mean that it doesn't follow.

No, the fact that it doesn't follow means it doesn't follow. Your argument is literally "the fact that we don't know what did X therefore supports that a specific agent (Y) is responsible for X".

That doesn't follow. The only way you can stretch it to make any kind of sense if you dishonestly redefine "God" when what this particular individual means when they refer to "God" is clearly very much a specific, intelligent agency.

 

[PureX]

Do you think that when DNB refers to "God" they are referring to "an unknown being" or do you think they are referring to a specific thing that they have a distinct definition for? Because it's pretty obvious it's not the former.

I am not here to guess what anyone is thinking. I am here to read what people write, and share what I think in response.

Yes it is. "God" is not another word for "we do not know". It's evoking a specific agent.

"God" is a label people use to refer to the great existential mystery. It does evoke a sense of agency, yes, but it cannot specify the content of that agency. Various religions will often try to do so, but that's a religious mechanism, and issue. I am not religious so it is of no concern to me.

No, the fact that it doesn't follow means it doesn't follow. Your argument is literally "the fact that we don't know what did X therefore supports that a specific agent (Y) is responsible for X".

The fact that X got did supports the contention that something did it. We don't have to know what X is to recognize the legitimacy of this proposition. And the fact that someone pretends to know what X is when they can't doesn't change that legitimacy.

That doesn't follow. The only way you can stretch it to make any kind of sense if you dishonestly redefine "God" when what this particular individual means when they refer to "God" is clearly very much a specific, intelligent agency.

 

[blü 2]

Many, if not most, of the things that humans like to think are "uniquely human" are in fact not exclusive to humans at all.

Quite.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am not here to guess what anyone is thinking. I am here to read what people write, and share what I think in response.

Then don't presume things that are contrary to what people have written, and don't tell people their assessments of other's positions are inaccurate when you don't know.

"God" is a label people use to refer to the great existential mystery. It does evoke a sense of agency, yes, but it cannot specify the content of that agency. Various religions will often try to do so, but that's a religious mechanism, and issue. I am not religious so it is of no concern to me.

We're talking about a specific person's use of the word. Is that how they are using it?

The fact that X got did supports the contention that something did it.

It does not support the contention that a SPECIFIC THING did it.

We don't have to know what X is to recognize the legitimacy of this proposition. And the fact that someone pretends to know what X is when they can't doesn't change that legitimacy.

It does when that is specifically the claim being made. Again, I refer you to the analogy about Prince. By your logic, it's "pretending to know what X is" that makes the claim "X is the cause of Y" a specific, rather than general, claim.

You understand that it's absurd to assert a specific, known entity as a cause JUST BECAUSE we currently don't know a cause.

So your logic does not follow.

 

[PureX]

Then don't presume things that are contrary to what people have written, and don't tell people their assessments of other's positions are inaccurate when you don't know.

Someone posted that existence is "miraculous". You disagreed. And you were wrong. Because by definition it is miraculous.

Also, you claimed that it's illogical to assume that some divine deity is responsible for that miracle. And again you were wrong. The mysterious nature of the "miraculous" does logically allow for that possibility. So then you tried to claim that the specific God that someone believes to be responsible for the miracle is illogical, and somehow that's supposed to justify your precious wrong comments. But it doesn't.

We're talking about a specific person's use of the word. Is that how they are using it?

I don't read minds. I read words. The word used (miracle) was appropriate in that context, and so were the implied deistic possibilities that were based on it.

It does not support the contention that a SPECIFIC THING did it.

It doesn't have to. The theistic proposition remains logical regardless of how someone specifically chooses to envision it.

It does when that is specifically the claim being made.

The claim being made that I saw was that existence is a miracle, and that God is responsible. This was not an illogical claim. And that does not change regardless of how illogical the claimant envisions it having happened.

Example: the claim that Ozwald killed Kennedy remains true even if I say he did so with a ray gun from outer space.

Again, I refer you to the analogy about Prince. By your logic, it's "pretending to know what X is" that makes the claim "X is the cause of Y" a specific, rather than general, claim.

That's not at all what I posted.

We know "Joe" is dead. We know he was murdered (we didn't see it happen but all the signs point to it). We know "Mr. X" murdered him because someone did. And for whatever reason we choose to call "Mr. X", "Prince". All of this remains true and logical even though we don't know who "Prince" is or how or why he murdered Joe. Thus the assertion that Prince murdered Joe is not an "argument from ignorance". The ignorance lays in who Prince is and how and why he murdered Joe, not in the assertion that he murdered Joe.

To state that "God" is responsible for the miracle of existence is really no different than stating that "Prince is responsible for Joe's murder". We don't know who God is, or how or why God is responsible for the miracle of existence. But we do know that existence exists, and that it is miraculous. And that miracles both allow for and even imply a benevolent source. It doesn't mean there HAS to be a benevolent source, but it's not illogical for one to assume there to be.

You understand that it's absurd to assert a specific, known entity as a cause JUST BECAUSE we currently don't know a cause.

You would learn a lot more if you stopped trying so hard to prove the "other guy" wrong and just listened to and considered the thoughts being offered to you, instead.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Someone posted that existence is "miraculous". You disagreed. And you were wrong. Because by definition it is miraculous.

Also, you claimed that it's illogical to assume that some divine deity is responsible for that miracle. And again you were wrong. The mysterious nature of the "miraculous" does logically allow for that possibility. So then you tried to claim that the specific God that someone believes to be responsible for the miracle is illogical, and somehow that's supposed to justify your precious wrong comments. But it doesn't.

Heh... how many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?

 

[Copernicus]

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.

Whose definition? You could bother to check a few dictionaries to see how it is commonly used by English speakers. In the sense that it was being used here, it was about an event that is not explicable by natural or scientific law and is normally considered the work of a divine agency. That's the whole point of all those stories about Jesus Christ having some connection to God, or did you miss that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not at all what I posted.

We know "Joe" is dead. We know he was murdered (we didn't see it happen but all the signs point to it). We know "Mr. X" murdered him because someone did. And for whatever reason we choose to call "Mr. X", "Prince". All of this remains true and logical even though we don't know who "Prince" is or how or why he murdered Joe. Thus the assertion that Prince murdered Joe is not an "argument from ignorance". The ignorance lays in who Prince is and how and why he murdered Joe, not in the assertion that he murdered Joe.

To state that "God" is responsible for the miracle of existence is really no different than stating that "Prince is responsible for Joe's murder". We don't know who God is, or how or why God is responsible for the miracle of existence. But we do know that existence exists, and that it is miraculous. And that miracles both allow for and even imply a benevolent source. It doesn't mean there HAS to be a benevolent source, but it's not illogical for one to assume there to be.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that "God" is nothing more than a label to slap on stuff that we don't understand, but that aside...

One problem arises when there's more than one thing or event: fine, call the murderer "Mr. X," but if you then proclaim that the next murder was also committed by "Mr. X," then you're assuming facts not in evidence by attributing both crimes to the same mystery figure.

 

[PureX]

Whose definition? You could bother to check a few dictionaries to see how it is commonly used by English speakers.

I don't care how it's commonly used. I care what it logically refers to. And that is 'an inexplicable and fortuitous event'. People commonly misuse words all the time. Like commonly referring to homosexuals as "gay". If you can't accept the proper logical definition of the term being discussed then there's no point in our tying to discuss it.

In the sense that it was being used here, it was about an event that is not explicable by natural or scientific law and is normally considered the work of a divine agency.

If one can explain the cause and/or reasons for the event being referred to as a 'miracle', then it is no longer a miraculous event. And you should have corrected the person misusing the term. However, I suspect that the person in question was not presuming to know any of those things, but only asserting their belief that his/her "God" was responsible for it. Which is a legitimate possibility even if you don't agree with it.

That's the whole point of all those stories about Jesus Christ having some connection to God, or did you miss that?

It was common in times when many events occurred in the lives of people that were left unexplained, both fortuitous and disastrous. So it was also common to attribute some of those events to gods and demons and people that wielded great power or commanded great respect. Now days some people make more of this than is warranted.