Atheists Favorite Argument

[watsup]

Start with the OP on page one.

The repetition of nonsense, as in the OP, does not make it anything else......

 

[watsup]

If the universe was caused for life and humans to exist it puts humanity in a special category. If we're the unintended result of mindless forces then humans aren't any more special than anything else that was accidentally caused to exist.

The latter is clearly correct.

 

[watsup]

Are you going to actually get serious and engage in this topic or just continue being a fool?

Are you aware of the concept of psychological projection?

 

[reinaert]

The latter is clearly correct.

It seems - and I absolutely could be reading this wrong - that the OP is trying to wrestle with existential meaningless by way of seeking ultimate value in 'first causes' as moral "truths".

 

[watsup]

I don't believe we would be here were it not for plankton. However either way you're saying the universe was intentionally caused to exist.

You can't detect sarcasm? Really?

 

[ataraxia]

This is one expression of it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

I think what they meant by "self-evident" is that "it seems obviously fair or just...". But who said nature or God must be just, or say things that seem "self-evident" to us mere mortals? I thought we agreed that God could exist, and just be a big jerk.

There are lots of ways a God could exist, and believe or want other things from what may seem "fair" or "just" to us, like this:

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."
-Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral."
-Rev. Alexander Campbell

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."
-Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

"... under the same protection as any other species of lawful property...That the Ten Commandments are the word of G-d, and as such, of the very highest authority, is acknowledged by Christians as well as by Jews...How dare you, in the face of the sanction and protection afforded to slave property in the Ten Commandments--how dare you denounce slaveholding as a sin? When you remember that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job--the men with whom the Almighty conversed, with whose names he emphatically connects his own most holy name, and to whom He vouchsafed to give the character of 'perfect, upright, fearing G-d and eschewing evil' (Job 1:8)--that all these men were slaveholders, does it not strike you that you are guilty of something very little short of blasphemy?"
-MJ Raphall, 1861
____________________________________
A good example of how what WE humans think is fair and just might be very different than what God actually wants, look at the story of Abraham and Isaac. When God tells Abraham to slice his own son's throat, it is obviously not something that seems fair or just to Abraham. It seems downright immoral. But Abraham obeys, because when a God exists, it's not his place to try to figure out what is fair or just. His job is to obey the commands of his Lord. If it was just up to us mortal humans to try to figure out what is just or fair, then why would we need a God? The whole moral of that story is that you obey what The Lord commands you, not what you think is right or seems fair to you.

For the founding fathers of this country, being mostly Deists and believing in a God of reason (as directly opposed to a God of Revelation- many of them were very hostile to the idea of such a God), such phrasing would make sense. But if you're talking about a Judeo-Christian God of Revelation, the idea of anything being "self-evident", like not slicing your own son's throat for no good reason, then you have to put aside the idea of anything being rational or "self-evident". You just have to do what you're told.

So which God do you believe in?

 

[watsup]

It seems - and I absolutely could be reading this wrong - that the OP is trying to wrestle with existential meaningless by way of seeking ultimate value in 'first causes' as moral "truths".

Quite frankly, I'm not sure what it is he is trying to do by his repetition, many dozens of times now, of an obviously ILLOGICAL claim regarding the supposed existence of a "Intelligent Designer". He is one of many who comes here with a particular claim of who or what "god" is and, unfortunately, stakes his chat reputation on it. But I like your analysis.

 

[Dragonfly]

However either way you're saying the universe was intentionally caused to exist.

No. I’m not.

 

[Galactic Spin]

The bold shows that you dont have the educational foundation or discernment or open mindedness needed to realize that the bold is wrong. So wrong.

There are no 'facts' that make it more likely. It's supposition, period. Again, you need a dictionary for "evidence."

As the saying goes goes...

"The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger Club is that you don't know you're in the Dunning-Kruger club."

Not saying our esteemed OP is stupid. Just apparently very ignorant of why his argument is invalid garbage.

 

[Lursa]

As the saying goes goes...

"The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger Club is that you don't know you're in the Dunning-Kreuger club."

Not saying our esteemed OP is stupid. Just apparently very ignorant of why his argument is invalid garbage.

IMO it's a lack of understanding of at least high school level science (hey C's and D's are passing) and religious bias. It's way easier to believe "what they tell you."

 

[Galactic Spin]

IMO it's a lack of understanding of at least high school level science (hey C's and D's are passing) and religious bias. It's way easier to believe "what they tell you."

By the way, your sig is blinding.

 

[ataraxia]

If the universe was caused for life and humans to exist it puts humanity in a special category. If we're the unintended result of mindless forces then humans aren't any more special than anything else that was accidentally caused to exist. I believe in the golden rule because I believe humans are special.

It seems we humans are special only to ourselves. If we go extinct I don't think any other species would care much (in fact, I am sure many of them would be downright happy and relieved). I'm pretty sure the rest of the cosmos wouldn't care much either.

But so what? If something is special to me, why does it matter if other animals or the rest of the cosmos care? If I love someone, or am engaged in a career which I think is important, or enjoy a particular hobby, etc... who cares what any potential other-worldly deities thinks about all that? Why would I need the approval of the entire cosmos? If I want to live in a world of peace and prosperity, would it matter to me that there is an otherworldly God who wants constant war and strife?

I think you are looking for approval for the things that are important to you by the entire cosmos. You don't really need it. If you love it/him/her, or think it's important, you would do it regardless of what the cosmos or otherworldly entities think of it. You should have that kind of self- confidence about your own values. Trust them. You are not a small child nor a psychopath with no sense of judgment or empathy without the threat of an other-worldly deity or other external moral authority whuppin' you if you don't behave. You have a sense of judgment. You know what's right. You know when you're doing things which hurt others.

Do the right thing. Don't worry about what other-worldly deities think. You should do the right thing even if they disapprove. Don't be like Abraham with Isaac. That story has led to more terrorism and unimaginable atrocities than if we were left to our own moral judgment and sentiment.

 

[DrewPaul]

The bold shows that you dont have the educational foundation or discernment or open mindedness needed to realize that the bold is wrong. So wrong.

There are no 'facts' that make it more likely. It's supposition, period. Again, you need a dictionary for "evidence."

Your response shows you're not a smart as you think you are. You can call my argument as a whole a claim, a supposition, a belief, an opinion. I've always said its an opinion. Its what I think is true. I don't claim to know its true. The facts I stated in support of my belief are not supposition, they are evidence. They make my claim, supposition, opinion or belief more probable than minus such facts. That is what evidence is. You can take the same evidence and argue from them if you think they make your case more probable.

I've employed the dictionary definition for evidence several times...from the OP.

Evidence are facts that support or make a contention more or less probable than minus said fact. Evidence alone is not proof. There are three general levels of proof. Scientific proof. Very rigorous usually meaning a conclusive experiment can be performed by other scientists with the same results. Criminal proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt with direct or circumstantial evidence. Finally there is in civil cases a mere preponderance of evidence in favor of a claim is all that's needed.

 

[Lursa]

Your response shows you're not a smart as you think you are. You can call my argument as a whole a claim, a supposition, a belief, an opinion. I've always said its an opinion. Its what I think is true. I don't claim to know its true. The facts I stated in support of my belief are not supposition, they are evidence. They make my claim, supposition, opinion or belief more probable than minus such facts. That is what evidence is. You can take the same evidence and argue from them if you think they make your case more probable.

The bold is still wrong, which is exactly what I wrote.

What facts did you state?

I've employed the dictionary definition for evidence several times...from the OP.

Well then I suggest you use it properly in the context of your arguments.

Evidence are facts that support or make a contention more or less probable than minus said fact. Evidence alone is not proof. There are three general levels of proof. Scientific proof. Very rigorous usually meaning a conclusive experiment can be performed by other scientists with the same results. Criminal proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt with direct or circumstantial evidence. Finally there is in civil cases a mere preponderance of evidence in favor of a claim is all that's needed.

Not a single 'rigorously' demonstrated premise in your posts, at least not after #2.

 

[watsup]

They make my claim, supposition, opinion or belief more probable than minus such facts.

Your problem is with the phrase "more probable". Given that the probability is still ZERO, I'm not sure how it is "more probable" than anything at all.

 

[devildavid]

I worry about people who feel this way...really I do.

What, me worry?

 

[Logician Man]

What, me worry?

I see what you did there.

 

[Noodlegawd]

This is what I expect...denial. You have nothing left.

What am I denying, specifically?

 

[Argent]

If the universe was caused for life and humans to exist it puts humanity in a special category. If we're the unintended result of mindless forces then humans aren't any more special than anything else that was accidentally caused to exist. I believe in the golden rule because I believe humans are special.

It is truly amazing to me, dare I say miraculous, that life spontaneously began by some mechanism that we have yet to discover. What's so special about being created by an entity of superior intelligence?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I responded to this objection on the previous page.

No, you didn't. You dismissed it as missing the point. That isn't the same as responding to it.

All the "fine-tuning" argument does is identify that life as we know it would be impossible if the universe was even the tiniest bit different. But of course, if the universe were even the tiniest bit different, it would have its own unique properties other than life as we know it that would likewise be impossible in our universe.

It should not be at all surprising that things unique to a particular set of circumstances are unique to that particular set of circumstances. It is tautologically true. It is not evidence of any kind of design.
The thing to look for in design is the consistency of function. If you look at an axe, it is clearly designed for chopping. Chopping is its primary function and you can tell from looking at the design that it is a chopping tool through and through.

Now suppose you find a mountain range filled with trees and wildlife and rivers. Somewhere in this mountain range is a jagged piece of rock that could kinda-sorta be used for chopping. The presence of that rock in that mountain range does not indicate that the mountain range was "fine-tuned" for chopping, and thus designed by someone for the purpose of chopping things. A mountain range is not a good design for a chopping tool. Not like an axe is. Even if there was some incredibly unlikely series of coincidences that all had to come together in order to form that little jagged piece of rock, it still doesn't mean that the mountain range was designed by some intelligent life form as a chopping tool, and it is rather ridiculous to imagine that it would be.

 

[soylentgreen]

No obliteration occurred from your responses. Ranting and raving just make you look silly.

Repetition also makes you look silly. Which is what you are doing now.

The problem as always is that no one is going to buy into f3. It is not a fact. At best it is a probability at worst its religious crap.

Considering you invited atheists into the play guess which way the pendulum is swinging.

 

[soylentgreen]

It is truly amazing to me, dare I say miraculous, that life spontaneously began by some mechanism that we have yet to discover. What's so special about being created by an entity of superior intelligence?

Question, have you not read any of the available literature on the subject of abiogenesis?

Or did sarcasm go flying over my head?

 

[DrewPaul]

I think what they meant by "self-evident" is that "it seems obviously fair or just...". But who said nature or God must be just, or say things that seem "self-evident" to us mere mortals? I thought we agreed that God could exist, and just be a big jerk.

So which God do you believe in?

Not really sure, I don't believe in the nature God that unintended caused our existence.

 

[watsup]

Not really sure, I don't believe in the nature God that unintended caused our existence.

What evidence do you have that our existence was ever “intended”. It was just the pure happenstance of evolution.

 

[ataraxia]

Not really sure, I don't believe in the nature God that unintended caused our existence.

Neither did the deists like the founding fathers. That’s why they believed in a God of nature- and a nature that worked according to purely rational principles. But the difference between that God and the God of revelation is that you don’t need scriptural guidance to know how to behave. They believed that rationality and moral sentiments were all you needed. They believed in a god that created the world and then sat back and watched it- kind of likea watchmaker.

Maybe you are a deist?