atheism is a (religious position)

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

Of course. There is both disparity and commonality. This is because we are related but still distinct species. Like I said, chimps use spears, humans use hydrogen bombs. It is the same trait -- use of weapons, but in humans it is more advanced. Chimps are still in the stone age, we left the stone age 8000 years ago.

 

[DNB]

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?

For the most part, yes.

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

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.

What point?

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?



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.

Try and take things in context, and quite being so shallow and secular minded.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

On what basis are you calling him immoral? You don't know his private life. You only know what he thinks on religion and related matters.

 

[DNB]

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.

Yes, my pet bird used to give to charity all the time. And, when I feed the squirrels in my backyard, you should see how good they are at sharing, and making sure that each one of them gets an even portion of peanuts. And, when dogs chase cats, they're always so gentle and playful with them, making sure never to hurt them - for why would they, they pose no threat.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, my pet bird used to give to charity all the time. And, when I feed the squirrels in my backyard, you should see how good they are at sharing, and making sure that each one of them gets an even portion of peanuts. And, when dogs chase cats, they're always so gentle and playful with them, making sure never to hurt them - for why would they, they pose no threat.

DNB you can mock all you want, but SkepticThinker is correct. Other animals do have their own primitive sense of morality, especially chimps. The sense of justice/fairness and empathy are well documented in chimps, and those two are the foundation for ethical reasoning.

Here is an example of a monkey furious at unjust treatment.

 

[DNB]

You believe atheists have no absolute moral code? Why?

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

What would you ascribe that to?

 

[DNB]

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

Non-believers' convictions are shallow and myopic. They are superficial and blind, so that they pronounce something that they can't see as being non existent.
Our perception penetrates deeper, and we recognize the spirit in man and what motivates him, and understand that the struggles on earth are not physical issues, but spiritual.
We have much more, and weightier evidence than you do.

 

[DNB]

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.

If we're talking about a deity, a divine and all powerful Being, then, yes, I know exactly what would be expected from an adherent's behaviour in worship of Him.
Monkeys placing stones around a tree just doesn't cut it.

 

[DNB]

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.

I don't know what the recommended caloric intake is?
Meaning, i was using harmful activity as my point - people are aware of the danger of continuing, and yet they still persist in their bad habits.

 

[DNB]

Of course. There is both disparity and commonality. This is because we are related but still distinct species. Like I said, chimps use spears, humans use hydrogen bombs. It is the same trait -- use of weapons, but in humans it is more advanced. Chimps are still in the stone age, we left the stone age 8000 years ago.

There's no comparison. You're reducing both to mammals, and then making your comparison based on that.
Man's spiritual nature, classifies him as no other being on the planet. Except for angels and God, and they are in the spiritual realm.

 

[DNB]

DNB you can mock all you want, but SkepticThinker is correct. Other animals do have their own primitive sense of morality, especially chimps. The sense of justice/fairness and empathy are well documented in chimps, and those two are the foundation for ethical reasoning.

Here is an example of a monkey furious at unjust treatment.

Why does everyone use the same video, especially a contrived experiment? If your premise was correct, there should be thousands of examples, for we can find millions that will prove man's moral capacity.

Both you and @SkepticThinker are incorrect. Your evidence is actually pathetic as to what you're trying to prove and compare with.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There's no comparison. You're reducing both to mammals, and then making your comparison based on that.
Man's spiritual nature, classifies him as no other being on the planet. Except for angels and God, and they are in the spiritual realm.

We ARE both mammals. and primates. and great apes. We differ only on the species level.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why does everyone use the same video, especially a contrived experiment? If your premise was correct, there should be thousands of examples, for we can find millions that will prove man's moral capacity.

Both you and @SkepticThinker are incorrect. Your evidence is actually pathetic as to what you're trying to prove and compare with.

Because some things are just classics. In this case, the humor value is sky high Also because most scientists don't publish videos of their research on YouTube .

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

False and false.

Firstly, it wasn't me who disagreed, it was Copernicus.

Secondly, it is obvious that the person they are responding to wasn't using the definition you're using. By THAT definition, the Universe is not miraculous, and your definition is clearly confusing a literal for a figurative definition.

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.

See, now you're just making no sense.

Firstly, the CLAIM is that a SPECIFIC AGENT is reponsible for the Universe, via the circular reasoning that the Universe is miraculous. That was the claim.

Secondly, "allowing for the possibility" doesn't make the ASSUMPTION THAT A SPECIFIC AGENT DID IT a logical conclusion. Again, this logic is identical to "It is POSSIBLE for Prince to have committed this murder, therefore it is logical to assume Prince committed the murder".

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.

Except I didn't say those things. You're misunderstanding and mischaracterising my arguments.

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.

The words wasn't being used to imply deistic possibilities. It was being used to argue in favour of a specific form of theism.

Your input was therefore neither useful, or insightful. It's just muddying the waters.

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

No, it does not. I've already explained the proposition doesn't follow.

The claim being made that I saw was that existence is a miracle, and that God is responsible. This was not an illogical claim.

Yes, it is, because it's circular reasoning. It's one unsupported claim being used to support another unsupported claim.

And that does not change regardless of how illogical the claimant envisions it having happened.

I'm not going to explain basic logic that you already know just so you can avoid admitting you made a mistake jumping in when it wasn't needed.

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

That's nowhere near being analogous to what was claimed.

That's not at all what I posted.

Yes it is.

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".

NO. That's not how this works. "Prince" is being implied as A SPECIFIC AGENT. It is not just a label. It is an entity that is very specific.

Please stop pretending they were making a vague, deistic claim. They were not.

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.

You can't just redefine terms however you want in order to sound smart. You don't. You're just making stuff up.

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".

I agree. Both are very odd things to say when you can't support them.

We don't know who God is, or how or why God is responsible for the miracle of existence.

That depends. Some people claim that they DO know and they DO know why. In such cases, the claim carries a very different burden.

But we do know that existence exists, and that it is miraculous.

Only if we use a figurative definition of miraculous rather than a literal definition, which is muddying the waters.

If understood by it's literal definition, we cannot say that the Universe is miraculous. That is claim you need to support.

And that miracles both allow for and even imply a benevolent source.

Again, circular reasoning. This only applies if you use the literal definition of "miracle" which renders the argument circular. If you're using the figurative meaning, then you cannot logically assert the source is benevolent. The figurative expression "it's a miracle they survived that crash" in a colloquial sense does not imply a literal, benevolent source prevented that person from dying. It simply means it was fortuitous.

It doesn't mean there HAS to be a benevolent source, but it's not illogical for one to assume there to be.

Yes it is. I've explained why, and your argument fails to overturn that.

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.

You mean, exactly liked you did when you jumped in to tell someone they're wrong?

You're wrong, PureX. Give it up already.

 

[Valjean]

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

No, we look out for family and friends. We support our communities. Our ancestors lived in communal bands -- one for all, and all for one.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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

So religions have done nothing to alter this? Why bother if it seems to be human nature? But it isn't for all, given that most people are not as you would seem to think. And you seem to have a highly cynical view of humanity driven by your religious beliefs - one of the deficits of religions all too often.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We live in a dog-eat-dog world, that subscribes to 'looking out for #1'.

No, we don't.
Even only for your very breakfast, you literally profit from the work and trust of hundreds of people.

Our entire society, from the ground up, depends on cooperation and trust.
When you go to the store to buy bread, you need to trust that the baker didn't poison it.
The baker has incentive to treat you well, so that you will return to his store.

In practically every aspect of your life, you depend on other people and cooperation with them.

So, what in the world are you talking about?

The necessities of being able to survive and thrive as a social species.
And it's not uniquely human either. All social species have some form of morality (ie: rules of conduct in context of the social group)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're immoral, for sure.

Why?

And, you haven't a clue of the consequences of thought crimes, promiscuity and drugs.

Demonstrate these supposed consequences.
Demonstrate the harm they case. Actual harm, not just imagined harm.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, my pet bird used to give to charity all the time. And, when I feed the squirrels in my backyard, you should see how good they are at sharing, and making sure that each one of them gets an even portion of peanuts. And, when dogs chase cats, they're always so gentle and playful with them, making sure never to hurt them - for why would they, they pose no threat.

You argue like a 5-year old.
You don't even bother to try and think things through.

Your "argument" is ridiculous.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Man's spiritual nature, classifies him as no other being on the planet.

And the eagle's eye also.

Every species has features that distincts them from all other species.
It's what makes them seperate species.

You have a seriously narcistic view of humans.
"Aren't we special"?

Yes, we are. But not in any sense that other species aren't special in their own way also.