atheism is a (religious position)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't care how it's commonly used. I care what it logically refers to. And that is 'an inexplicable and fortuitous event'.

That usage is figurative, not literal.

"An inexplicable and fortuitous event" is literally a miracle in the exact same sense as how a "policy czar" is literally a Russian monarch (i.e. not at all).

 

[Valjean]

No, unless your talking about the misguided or insincere Christians.
Christians are better people morally than atheists - you have no absolute moral code - half of you don't believe that fantasizing about the opposite sex is wrong, or even being promiscuous.

You believe atheists have no absolute moral code? Why?

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...
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.

My code is practical and consequence oriented. Your code is capricious, and its reasoning and ends often baffling.

 

[Valjean]

It has absolutely no natural explanation - a tree did not derive its existence from the same source as a frog or bird. Humans have no biological relationship with a mountain or sand. The celestial entities do not share a common ancestor with that of the apes.

It absolutely has a natural explanation, which you should have learned in school. Your theology does not. It has an agent, and a claim of magic.

An intelligent, personal and all powerful being created all things under the sun, and only humans share His image of spiritual cognizance.

So you claim.
You believe your unevidenced myth, and pretend non-believers' well evidenced and tested beliefs are without merit.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

You were the one who brought up definitions, and your expression "logically refers to" doesn't actually contribute anything at all do the discussion. All you have done is assign a secondary sense to the word that is also found in dictionaries as common colloquial usage. An example would be expressions like "It's a miracle that everyone survived." That's not the sense that has been used in this thread, but I suppose you have your reasons for wanting to muddy the waters a little. Your second sense of the word really has nothing to do with logic or reference. All words carry some degree of ambiguity, and that's why dictionary entries often list more than one sense of a word.

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.

I'm not opposed to talking about logical possibilities. It is a logical possibility that mythical beings--angels, demons, gods, etc.--exist. Miracles are events that, in principle, cannot be explained by laws of nature. They are welcome events thought to have a supernatural cause that is usually associated with a divine agency. I don't think people have as much trouble understanding the concept as you do.

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.

I do think that you are making more of this than is warranted. I'm not sure why it bothers you so much to talk about miracles. The concept is not really difficult to understand. The Bible is full of references to miracles, and God seems to be pretty much connected to all of them. This thread taking place in a forum on religious debates should serve as a clue to the relevant sense of the word "miracle".

 

[Valjean]

Atheists take for granted man's cognizance of morality, not realizing where this endowment came from. Why do only humans have it?
Thus, God is the author of morality, for the knowledge of sin and righteousness cannot evolve from stardust and protoplasm.

We know perfectly well where this endowment came from. It came from the same selective process that produced all our physical and psychological traits.
What makes you think only humans have it? Empathy, altruism and coöperation are well documented among other animals, especially social animals.
"Goddidit," again, explains nothing. At best it attributes. Natural selection of useful traits, on the other hand, explains everything.

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.

You don't understand what would count as evidence of religiosity, or of what forms it might take other than formal, human religious formats.
You don't seem to understand the origins or function of formal, human religion, or why it would be unnecessary in non-humans.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not opposed to talking about logical possibilities. It is a logical possibility that mythical beings--angels, demons, gods, etc.--exist.

Is it?

I don't think any of those things have been established to be possible.

"Not definitively excluded as impossible (so far)" <> "possible"

 

[Valjean]

Exactly. The analogy I use is this: Imagine that you decide to hold your breath and not breath. At first it's easy. But the more time goes on, the more desperate you become for another breath, until you finally have no choice but to breath.

Humans evolved drives, heuristics and traits that worked well, given their environment and lifestyles, but, like any animal, if forced to live in an entirely new environment, those formerly functional features become dysfunctional. Hence the foibles you mentioned.
Natural selection and evolution explains it. Goddidit does not. In fact, given God's purported omniscience and omnipotence, creatures like ourselves would be an embarrassment, would we not?

 

[Copernicus]

Is it?

I don't think any of those things have been established to be possible.

"Not definitively excluded as impossible (so far)" <> "possible"

I would say that it depends on how one conceives of those things. It is certainly possible to define beings with logically contradictory properties--for example, omniscience, omnipotence, and free will. People have certainly argued that about the Plato-inspired perfect God. However, it is also possible to define gods and other mythical beings in noncontradictory terms. The problem is that we humans are astonishingly capable of compartmentalizing mutually inconsistent and contradictory beliefs in a way that allows us to deny that we have them.

For interesting essays on the subject, see: The Impossibility of God

 

[IndigoChild5559]

whoopsie

 

[DNB]

Exactly. The analogy I use is this: Imagine that you decide to hold your breath and not breath. At first it's easy. But the more time goes on, the more desperate you become for another breath, until you finally have no choice but to breath.

Sorry, that's analogous to which part: not breathing = over eating, and having to breathe = having to stop eating?

 

[DNB]

This is also somewhat mistaken. The religious behaviors of chimps is currently being studied -- behaviors that, if it were a human doing them, would certainly be considered religion. For example, chimps dancing in awe at certain natural wonders such as a beautiful and powerful waterfall. Another example would be the rock cairns that chimps make ONLY at certain trees. Is chimp religiousity on par with that of humans? No. But it is, in its own very limited way, the beginnings of religion in the species.

Absurd. Birds, cats and dogs all have funky antics when something precipitates it.
Comparing such behaviour as dancing to a sunset with man's liturgies, power invoking, sermons, bible readings, eucharists, icons and prayer beads, is not even in the ballpark.

 

[DNB]

I don't consider them exceptional cases. As a rule of thumb, the same characteristics we find in human beings can be found in, i.e. chimpanzees -- the difference is one of quantity, not quality. Chimps make spears, humans make hydrogen bombs. It's the same trait, just more advanced in humans.

You found a similarity - that can be found in any animal species. i.e. one eats, the other eats - therefore they must be related to a religious degree.
Let's see you take note of the disparity that exists between the differences.

 

[DNB]

Is voting for a narcissist and pathological liar like Donald Trump high on your list?

possibly #1 - as being an indication of man's self inflicted absurdities

So have I got this right?
Your answer to your own statement "You are not ascribing to man the correct source of his dysfunctionality and depravity" is "selfish vanity and perversion" ?

Yes, spiritual traits and inclinations is what dictate man's actions. He is fighting with his pride when it comes to telling the truth, and not what benefit will be produced by doing so. He buys a car that he can't afford, due to his vanity and pretense, despite how detrimental certain aspects of his life will become. Be, even more ironic, that car will not bring him the pleasure that he believes that it will.

This is wisdom and the spirit both discerning and eliciting these actions. Not pure intellect and rationale.

 

[DNB]

These are emotional temptations, and how does your religion help you manage these?

Recognizing the source and outcome

 

[DNB]

There is, of course, no evidence to suggest that the "celestial entities" have objective existence. Rather they are concepts, ideas, things imagined, in individual brains, which explains why they never appear, say or do.

But if you insist they have objective existence, in what taxonomic group do they belong?

When I refer to celestial entities, I simply meant planets, quasars, red dwarfs, satellites, stars, meteors, galaxies, etc...
I think that most are predominantly comprised of hydrogen and nitrogen, as far as the atmosphere is concerned.
Either way, they are not the ancestors or descendants of the whale, mosquito or amoeba - we all did not evolve from one biological source.

 

[DNB]

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

Prevalent and predominant throughout the world, in every history and society.
To simplify it, just call it unjustified or irrational or impractical behaviour.

 

[DNB]

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.

We live in a dog-eat-dog world, that subscribes to 'looking out for #1'.
So, what in the world are you talking about?

 

[F1fan]

Recognizing the source and outcome

That's vague and open to error. It seems to me you prefer the emotional reward of belief, and opt to avoid the discipline of mind that requires work.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sorry, that's analogous to which part: not breathing = over eating, and having to breathe = having to stop eating?

Our appetite is determined by our physiology, hormones and stuff. For example, I have on numerous occasions reduced my caloric intake to 1200 calories a day, but it causes me to obsess about food. I cannot stay on such a diet forever.

 

[DNB]

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

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


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.

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 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!

Please tell me that I have called atheists like yourself 'oblivious', in previous posts. I know that I did, I just wanted to emphasize it.

You're immoral, for sure. And, you haven't a clue of the consequences of thought crimes, promiscuity and drugs.
Shameful.