Arguments about Him

[chaz wyman]

Theists use the argument from God that our rights stem from Him so that they are inalienable rather than from the state and thus revocable. That is a false dilemma. Our rights stem from our level of consciousness. Indeed, we naturalists not only find that for us, so does the UN, in effect. And some of us want to extend more protections to the other great apes as have Spain and New Zealand in accordance with the Great Ape Project. This comports with Morgan's Canon. So atheists can further rights.
We ignostics would like to know how a disembodied entity could ever think or act without a mind, as the mind must have a brain. And it does no good to aver that Existence is his body and so, He has a brain and so , a mind as we cannot find the needed ganglia, axons and neurons.

Some atheists thought He'd have a body that one could find. No.
So, again , theists themselves affirm ignosticsm!
It hardly behooves Christians to aver that they have a relationship with their god-man , or Muslims that they have a way of life, not a religion. Poetically, fine, but that is preaching in vain as Paul the Sophist did.
And at that level, we are free beings, beholden to no totalitarian Yahweh or Allah.The I am that I am has only the duty to have put us into a better place as the problem of Heaven delineates.
' Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning."

Historically the notion of rights, born in the (so-called Enlightenment), stemmed from the Reformation as these inalienable rights are bestowed. Bestowed by the Deity at birth. Despite this the UN declaration makes no reference to god but still establishes that all humans have these rights from birth. There is debate as to whether or not this is a meaningless statement. It certainly makes little sense to a citizen of a country who is not a signatory, or belong to a country that has no will to provide those basic rights. Who then holds the responsibility to demand or enforce those right to those that do not have them?
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

[skeptic griggsy]

Most supernaturalists have never really been exposed to atheism! What their faiths teach them about it errs. Really as that survey notes, many don't really know much about religious matters in distinction to us non-theists! We know the above arguments and we read scriptures, finding them eviscerating themselves!
[color=#800000
Now, what are responses to my implied questions? Why disbelief or belief?
What about that sacred relationship? Why would one ascribe power to Him if belief in Him suffices to motivate oneself? Could people find their own purposes? Do they really have to believe that their lives are meaningless if no God exists and no future state exists for them and their love ones? Couldn't people overcome dread, Ayala notwithstanding, by getting therapy as I did? How does He ultimately explain why there is something rather than nothing?
Again, how might one answer my previous posts? I can ever rebut! Serendipity helps me in that manner!
Others can admire our civility!
Goodwill and blessings to all!
[/color]

[skeptic griggsy]

chaz wyman, that evolutionary creationist Francisco Jose Ayala avers that we need Him to overcome dread and to have purpose and values, which is the purpose of religion, but I alarm the world that no, see a counselor to overcome that dread and find your own purposes and meanings! His argument is the one from angst that Augustine himself notes as he was restless unless in God's bosom. No evidence exists for that argument whatsoever but the wish for Him, and so this is no use of the genetic fallacy but what supernaturalists themselves aver!
See the last chapter of Ayala's" Darwin and Intelligent Design," where he make the argument for relgion upholding values. He prattles that we naturalists cannot use science against the supernatural, but science notes that no man can be virgin-borned, do miracles and be resurrected! And science notes that is finding natural causes and natural explanations explain matters without recourseto the the silly mysteries of the supernatural. He excoriates us naturalists for relying on science to substantiate naturalism, but no, we rely on its proven successes whilst the supernatural has none whatsoever! Science can solve how to overcome diseases whilst faith-healing can kill or maim.
Ethics, as Plato notes, needs no supernatural underpinning, so why then would we need religion for that? Esop's Fables are better than those scriptures prizing stoning and sending people to Hell!
Poor Ayala and Kenneth Miller!

[IgnosticMorgan]

Lamberth's reduced animism argument is that since per the Coyne-Mayr -Lamberth teleonomic argument that no divine intent exists, then theism is just reduced animism and just as superstitious as full animism. Over @ Theology-Web, someone states that Levy-Bruhl decades ago illuminated that theism is not that, but I doubt that he was aware that science finds no divine intent,so theism parallels full animism after all!
That animism makes for the pareidolia that Lamberth's argument from pareidolia notes.
Lamberth's non-genetic argument notes that theists themselves unwittingly affirm our naturalist arguments about why they believe with their unsubstantiated arguments from happiness-purpose and from angst.
Posts 55[54-Skeptic Griggsy]