Imperefct God

[Dontaskme]

You can't "use" the rules of logic, anymore than you can "use" the law of gravity. It is what it is.

So, a person such as yourself can insert anything into the premise structure...

No: one has to insert true information, or as logicians say, the conclusion is "untrue" and the syllogism is "unsound."

But if the information is true, and the form is correct, then the conclusion is inescapable. (All this you can read in the link I sent you.)

So the syllogism is this:

Premise 1: There is no God (...according to Atheism: And it has to be that. That's true. It's true by definition of what "Atheist" means.)
Premise 2: To be supplied by Lace.
Conclusion: Therefore, no Atheist can X (X being a moral claim, such as "murder," or "rape," or "give ice cream to orphans"...it's left entirely up to you what it is, so I'm not responsible for that, either.)

All you have to do is supply the Premise 2 that makes Premise 1 logically entail the conclusion X you have designed. That's it.

And whatever you say will be true, if the form is right. Because Premise 1 certainly is, and the conclusion is your own. All I'm inputting is that whatever you choose for the conclusion, X should be something ethical or moral, some precept, since we're trying to see if Atheism can warrant any such thing.

But it can't. That's what you're going to find out.

Since you like to play the MORAL CARD a lot.

Ask yourself, not me, if it's moral to impose a life on someone who neither has the need or desire to live out your own personal concept of morality.

Are you willing to play the morality card? Or maybe your like that ostrich Henry who likes to bury all the difficult questions in his penalty box... because that's the only way he honestly knows how best to answer them.

Lets all find out what is really moral about being a human sentient feeling organism?

You go first...

I understand you like petting dogs, but wouldn't dream of petting a lobster. But that's just because you prefer an easy life. As we all do. So ask yourself, why would someone even want to share their world with lobsters?

.

[uwot]

Premise 1: There is no God (...according to Atheism: And it has to be that. That's true. It's true by definition of what "Atheist" means.)

This is Mr Can's straw Atheist again. He has invented this character because he thinks it is necessary for his argument that atheists insist there is no god. That is his definition, but the definition of atheist that most people use is someone who does not believe in a god. The joke is that Mr Can is so blinded by fanaticism he can't understand that the actual definition is perfectly good for his argument. Too bad Mr Can's argument, like all arguments for god from morality, is useless bollocks whatever definition is used. Here's Mr Can's version:
Premise 1: There is a God
Premise 2: Good is whatever his christian god says it is.
Conclusion: Therefore, no Canist christian can X if X is contrary to the will of Mr Can's god.

If Mr Can is going to lecture on the difference between valid and sound arguments, he needs to demonstrate that his primary premise is true. This he can't do, despite appeals to other equally useless arguments.
For the second premise to be true, you have to accept that not believing in Mr Can's god is a crime that justifies an eternity of torture. You also have to believe that any crime you have committed can be paid for by the torture and execution of a third party. If that doesn't strike you as grotesque, congratulations, there's a chance for you to spend forever and ever in the charming company of Mr Can.
The conclusion is just no true Scotsman. Hopeless.

[Lacewing]

one has to insert true information...

True to who? According to your senseless distortion?

Atheism is not a being or a static thing. Connecting morality or any quality to it is a farce.

Your ideas of truth and logic are profoundly limited by distortions you use to serve yourself. Apparently you refuse to see how much more there is, in favor of cramming everything into little boxes that you can set on a shelf of your collectible notions.

Your entire exercise is meaningless: it is based on nonsense and concludes nothing.

[jayjacobus]

Premise 1: There is no God (...according to Atheism: And it has to be that. That's true. It's true by definition of what "Atheist" means.)

This is Mr Can's straw Atheist again. He has invented this character because he thinks it is necessary for his argument that atheists insist there is no god. That is his definition, but the definition of atheist that most people use is someone who does not believe in a god. The joke is that Mr Can is so blinded by fanaticism he can't understand that the actual definition is perfectly good for his argument. Too bad Mr Can's argument, like all arguments for god from morality, is useless bollocks whatever definition is used. Here's Mr Can's version:
Premise 1: There is a God
Premise 2: Good is whatever his christian god says it is.
Conclusion: Therefore, no Canist christian can X if X is contrary to the will of Mr Can's god.

If Mr Can is going to lecture on the difference between valid and sound arguments, he needs to demonstrate that his primary premise is true. This he can't do, despite appeals to other equally useless arguments.
For the second premise to be true, you have to accept that not believing in Mr Can's god is a crime that justifies an eternity of torture. You also have to believe that any crime you have committed can be paid for by the torture and execution of a third party. If that doesn't strike you as grotesque, congratulations, there's a chance for you to spend forever and ever in the charming company of Mr Can.
The conclusion is just no true Scotsman. Hopeless.

Beliefs are spread by people aggrandizing their own beliefs. Atheist do the same.

Is my premise acceptable to you?

[Immanuel Can]

..most humans fall far short of that evil marker.

Watch Kabul. Watch Haiti. Watch South Africa. Watch Cuba. Watch China, or Venzuela. Watch many places, for that matter; and then tell me human beings are all sweetness and light.

And when you're done, have a look within yourself. A person only has to know his own heart to know the truth.

Again, ask yourself, why would anyone want to impose or force upon another life to live as a person born in Kabul, or Haiti, or South Africa. or Cuba, or China, or Venzuela. ?

"Force"?

It just supports what the Bible says about human nature.

[Immanuel Can]

...you like to play the MORAL CARD a lot.

Well, I'm talking to Lace, not to you.

I've given you your time, and, by your own testimony, you just waste it on drama. If that's what you want to do, then I just can't be bothered.

[Immanuel Can]

one has to insert true information...

True to who?

Objectively correct.

Atheism is not a being or a static thing.

Yeah, it is. It's a very simple thing: it's nothing but the denial that a God or god(s) exist. (Some say, "It's the belief in no gods," which is making a distinction with no difference.) That's what all the Atheists here, in fact, insist it is.

Connecting morality...to it is a farce.

Right.

Atheism cannot rationalize any morality. That's exactly what I've been saying. Right on.

A person can be an Atheist and act like a saint, if, for some reason of his own, he wants to. He can also be a bit of a weasel, and sometimes be good and sometimes do bad things, and be 100% an Atheist. He can also act like Josef Stalin, and be every bit as much an Atheist, and not a whit worse than the former two Atheists. Atheism does not tell anybody which one it must be.

Atheism, as a creed, has zero moral information in it. The only thing it says you MUST do is to deny the existence of God.

[Lacewing]

Atheism does not tell anybody which one it must be.

The only thing it says you MUST do is to deny the existence of God.

What is your conclusion of your distorted nonsense?

[Immanuel Can]

Atheism does not tell anybody which one it must be.

The only thing it says you MUST do is to deny the existence of God.

What is your conclusion of your distorted nonsense?

Well, let's isolate the alleged "distortion." Which of the following two statements contains the "distortion"?

1. Atheism means disbelief in any gods.

2. Atheism does not oblige any morals.

Those are the only two things I've said. Which one is the "distortion"?

[Lacewing]

Atheism does not tell anybody which one it must be.

The only thing it says you MUST do is to deny the existence of God.

Do you have a conclusion based on this?

[Immanuel Can]

Atheism does not tell anybody which one it must be.

The only thing it says you MUST do is to deny the existence of God.

Do you have a conclusion based on this?

Umm...did you read anything I wrote?

My conclusion is: Atheism does not rationalize any morality.

Tell me why you think that's not true. All you have to do is give me a moral precept Atheism requires.

[Lacewing]

My conclusion is: Atheism does not rationalize any morality.

And what do you conclude based on that conclusion? Does it just stop there?

What do you conclude about atheists?

What do you conclude about theists?

What difference does your conclusion point to, and why does it matter?

[Immanuel Can]

My conclusion is: Atheism does not rationalize any morality.

And what do you conclude based on that conclusion?

No, no...you don't get to weasel this. My turn to ask.

I'll answer your question after you answer mine.

Is the above conclusion true or not? Answer that.

[Greatest I am]

..most humans fall far short of that evil marker.

Watch Kabul. Watch Haiti. Watch South Africa. Watch Cuba. Watch China, or Venzuela. Watch many places, for that matter; and then tell me human beings are all sweetness and light.

And when you're done, have a look within yourself. A person only has to know his own heart to know the truth.

I agree with your last. The rest is garbage.

Here is a truth you do not like, that show atheists are more moral, law abiding and peaceful than theists..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA

Regards
DL

[Lacewing]

My conclusion is: Atheism does not rationalize any morality.

And what do you conclude based on that conclusion?

No, no...you don't get to weasel this. My turn to ask.

I'll answer your question after you answer mine.

Is the above conclusion true or not? Answer that.

I've already answered your dumb-ass claim about atheism and the way you are distorting it. We disagree. So let's move on to: WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT OF YOUR CONCLUSION? Are you concluding something about atheists? Are you concluding something about theists? Go ahead and tell us why it makes any difference or matters at all?