Category: god

Regular

Regular

scientificphilosopher:

You have an interesting take here, but it’s probably worth noting that logical fallacies such as ‘guilt by association’ are informal fallacies, and their soundness is therefore a posteriori rather than a priori. Fallacies such as these are not perfectly analogous to mathematical or structural truths, as circumstances can render them sound. It could be the case, for instance, that a god built guilt into our DNA and it’s thus transferable through generations.

I don’t know that every informal fallacy’s soundness is determined a posteriori. If soundness is reached via reason, and I see no reason to add an empirical dimension to determine the soundness of an informal fallacy, then that is also a priori. Even still, however, a perfectly logical being wouldn’t reason fallaciously, let alone base his actions on fallacious reasoning. Even if inherited guilt was built into our DNA, which no empirical research has shown, there’s still a logical issue with making a child pay for their parents sins. So even if I somehow inherit the guilt of my mother’s marital infedility, that doesn’t mean that I should pay the price for her adultery.

Collective guilt, for example, is a thing. I am, for instance, ashamed of my country’s actions. I am American and at the moment and for practically my whole life, I haven’t been proud to be one. I feel guilty being a citizen of a country that murdered millions of Native Americans and stripped them of their lands, allowed slavery, incarcerated Japanese citizens in internment camps, and incarcerates rates Blacks and Latinos disproportionately in comparison to other ethnic groups — aside from the many other human rights infractions this country has committed. That, however, does not mean that I should pay the price for American crimes. While some people may be perfectly content to make me pay on the basis of guilt by association (i.e. well, he’s an American, so his arrest or death is good enough for me!), a perfectly logical being simply should not and would not be content with passing such a sentence. It isn’t logical, just, or moral, but alas, the Judeo-Christian and Muslim gods behave accordingly. Like I said in the post, if a theist or, in your case, an agnostic is reluctant to admit that there are moral or legal failings in the actions of these theistic gods, they must admit that there are clear logical failings in their actions. That poses yet another problem in a long list of problems for theism.

Regular

scientificphilosopher:

You have an interesting take here, but it’s probably worth noting that logical fallacies such as ‘guilt by association’ are informal fallacies, and their soundness is therefore a posteriori rather than a priori. Fallacies such as these are not perfectly analogous to mathematical or structural truths, as circumstances can render them sound. It could be the case, for instance, that a god built guilt into our DNA and it’s thus transferable through generations.

I don’t know that every informal fallacy’s soundness is determined a posteriori. If soundness is reached via reason, and I see no reason to add an empirical dimension to determine the soundness of an informal fallacy, then that is also a priori. Even still, however, a perfectly logical being wouldn’t reason fallaciously, let alone base his actions on fallacious reasoning. Even if inherited guilt was built into our DNA, which no empirical research has shown, there’s still a logical issue with making a child pay for their parents sins. So even if I somehow inherit the guilt of my mother’s marital infedility, that doesn’t mean that I should pay the price for her adultery.

Collective guilt, for example, is a thing. I am, for instance, ashamed of my country’s actions. I am American and at the moment and for practically my whole life, I haven’t been proud to be one. I feel guilty being a citizen of a country that murdered millions of Native Americans and stripped them of their lands, allowed slavery, incarcerated Japanese citizens in internment camps, and incarates Blacks and Latinos disproportionately in comparison to other ethnic groups — aside from the many other human rights infractions this country has committed. That, however, does not mean that I should pay the price for American crimes. While some people may be perfectly content to make me pay on the basis of guilt by association (i.e. well, he’s an American, so his arrest or death is good enough for me!), a perfectly logical being simply should not and would not be content with passing such a sentence. It isn’t logical, just, or moral, but alas, the Judeo-Christian and Muslim gods behave accordingly. Like I said in the post, if a theist or, in your case, an agnostic is reluctant to admit that there are moral or legal failings in the actions of these theistic gods, they must admit that there are clear logical failings in their actions. That poses yet another problem in a long list of problems for theism.

A Brief Thought on Divine Command Theory

I wrote the following in response to a Muslim on a New York Times opinion piece on Facebook. Everyone who discusses the actions of the Judeo-Christian and/or Muslim gods focuses far too much on the moral and legal ramifications of said actions. No one realizes that, per the theist, their god is perfectly logical. As such, the logical dimension of an action attributed to this god has to be captured. With that in mind, I offer the following.

Even if punishing children for the crimes of their parents is either moral or legal, though we haven’t apprehended that as of yet, there’s still the issue that it isn’t logical. Logic is a priori and therefore, logic for humans is logic for the god of monotheism. Just as we can’t make a round square or sided circle, neither can god. Per the philosophically inclined theist, the laws of logic, as an extension of his creative power, are part of him and as such, he can’t violate his own nature. As such, god would be perfectly logical and would thus reason perfectly, which means he wouldn’t commit logical fallacies. Given that, he wouldn’t commit an act that’s based in the fallacy of guilt by association. To punish a child for their parents crimes is exactly that! God would be finding someone guilty do to their association or more specifically, their relation to a sinner.

To my mind, this is the ultimate defeater because it should be clear that the Judeo-Christian and Muslim gods have acted on the basis of fallacious logic. It would make more sense that such actions are the actions of people who wished to attribute said actions to a god, perhaps for sake of justifying their actions and attempting to spare themselves any guilty they might have felt. Clearly, however, a perfectly logical god wouldn’t base any of its actions on fallacious logic. The doctrine of original sin, for instance, is itself based on guilt by association. So even if a Christian fails to see the moral failing in such a doctrine, they would have to concede that there’s certainly a logical failing.

So, my followers, I leave you with this question: can you think of any other actions attributed to god in the Bible or in the Qur’an that are based on fallacious reasoning? 

A Brief Thought on Divine Command Theory

I wrote the following in response to a Muslim on a New York Times opinion piece on Facebook. Everyone who discusses the actions of the Judeo-Christian and/or Muslim gods focuses far too much on the moral and legal ramifications of said actions. No one realizes that, per the theist, their god is perfectly logical. As such, the logical dimension of an action attributed to this god has to be captured. With that in mind, I offer the following.

Even if punishing children for the crimes of their parents is either moral or legal, though we haven’t apprehended that as of yet, there’s still the issue that it isn’t logical. Logic is a priori and therefore, logic for humans is logic for the god of monotheism. Just as we can’t make a round square or sided circle, neither can god. Per the philosophically inclined theist, the laws of logic, as an extension of his creative power, are part of him and as such, he can’t violate his own nature. As such, god would be perfectly logical and would thus reason perfectly, which means he wouldn’t commit logical fallacies. Given that, he wouldn’t commit an act that’s based in the fallacy of guilt by association. To punish a child for their parents crimes is exactly that! God would be finding someone guilty do to their association or more specifically, their relation to a sinner.

To my mind, this is the ultimate defeater because it should be clear that the Judeo-Christian and Muslim gods have acted on the basis of fallacious logic. It would make more sense that such actions are the actions of people who wished to attribute said actions to a god, perhaps for sake of justifying their actions and attempting to spare themselves any guilty they might have felt. Clearly, however, a perfectly logical god wouldn’t base any of its actions on fallacious logic. The doctrine of original sin, for instance, is itself based on guilt by association. So even if a Christian fails to see the moral failing in such a doctrine, they would have to concede that there’s certainly a logical failing.

So, my followers, I leave you with this question: can you think of any other actions attributed to god in the Bible or in the Qur’an that are based on fallacious reasoning? 

I don’t know if this is the dumbest thing you …

I don’t know if this is the dumbest thing you can say to an atheist. There’s a lot of competition, but it’s certainly on the list, and it’s been said to me.

If you don’t accept the existence of a god, you probably don’t accept the concept of “sin” as defined by “something offensive to god”. 

Also, research indicates that atheists are as likely to act morally as religious people, for all values of “moral” that do not include a god. 

I don’t know if this is the dumbest thing you …

I don’t know if this is the dumbest thing you can say to an atheist. There’s a lot of competition, but it’s certainly on the list, and it’s been said to me.

If you don’t accept the existence of a god, you probably don’t accept the concept of “sin” as defined by “something offensive to god”. 

Also, research indicates that atheists are as likely to act morally as religious people, for all values of “moral” that do not include a god. 

Regular

Dear Theists,

I am not here to be saved.

I am not here to be granted your pity.

I am not here to be “enlightened” by your beliefs.

I am not here for you to attack.

I am not here for you at all.

I am here because I choose my beliefs after YEARS of research and exploration on them individually. I am here because I chose what I believe is the best for me and those my life will affect.

If you want to learn about my beliefs or discuss them peacefully I am all about it, but I am not here for you.

I am not broken. I am a whole, loving, respectful atheist. I am here just because I am.

Regular

Dear Theists,

I am not here to be saved.

I am not here to be granted your pity.

I am not here to be “enlightened” by your beliefs.

I am not here for you to attack.

I am not here for you at all.

I am here because I choose my beliefs after YEARS of research and exploration on them individually. I am here because I chose what I believe is the best for me and those my life will affect.

If you want to learn about my beliefs or discuss them peacefully I am all about it, but I am not here for you.

I am not broken. I am a whole, loving, respectful atheist. I am here just because I am.

Regular

New goal!

I want to be back, but not to everyday posts again. My goal is going to be one post a week! Lets see how this goes 💚