Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[LuckyR]

I know. The source of morals you described is NOT natual.

Which is precisely what my argument concludes. Q.E.D!

... Uummm... it's "derive", just sayin'...

Is the extra "r" all you could find wrong?

I was starting chronologically.

[Skepdick]

... Uummm... it's "derive", just sayin'...

Is the extra "r" all you could find wrong?

I was starting chronologically.

And the first order of events was grammar, not semantics?

[LuckyR]

Well next, humans are a part of nature while simultaneously creating unnatural products and processes.

[Skepdick]

Well next, humans are a part of nature while simultaneously creating unnatural products and processes.

Persuasive definition fallacy

natural /ˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/ adjective 1. existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

[LuckyR]

Well next, humans are a part of nature while simultaneously creating unnatural products and processes.

Persuasive definition fallacy

natural /ˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/ adjective 1. existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Ah yes, dictionaries. The first, most elementary and superficial source for those with no working knowledge or experience with a term.

[Peter Kropotkin]

something about this thread has really bothered me and I couldn't figure
it out until I realized that you have separated human beings from ''natural"
from nature...

Skepdick:
It's made by humankind - therefore it's NOT natural.

It's also perfectly consistent with the definition of "supernatural'

K: and that is what has bothered me... we also exist within nature..
we are nature...for how can we separate ourselves from natural,
nature? it is impossible for us to be separate, apart from nature?

this entire thread is based on a false understanding of nature
and human beings.... we are nature..... and anything we hold to,
believe in, is part of nature, part of the natural... that there
is no such thing as the supernatural... outside of nature, outside
of the natural...it is just events we haven't yet understood...
like in the past, we didn't understand thunder and lighting and
we created supernatural means for thunder and lighting,
whereas today, we don't need supernatural explanations for
thunder and lighting...

and soon, we will be able to make natural explanations for all
those things that bother us today.... things that we claim to be
''supernatural'' and aren't...

Kropotkin

[Skepdick]

Well next, humans are a part of nature while simultaneously creating unnatural products and processes.

Persuasive definition fallacy

Ah yes, dictionaries. The first, most elementary and superficial source for those with no working knowledge or experience with a term.

Not my circus - not my monkeys. I keep being told that words have meaning. And that I don't get to make that up as I go along...

I am just playing by the rules. If you don't like ther rules - your problem isn't with my argument. Your problem's with the game. You should complain to somebody to get the rules fixed.

nature /ˈneɪtʃə/ noun 1. the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

[Skepdick]

this entire thread is based on a false understanding of nature
and human beings.... we are nature..... and anything we hold to,

How many times do I have to explain this? As a speaker of the English language, participating in social discourse which includes adhering to a set of social norms; such as the acceptable and unacceptable use of words. I don't get to make up my own, idiosyncratic meaning of words and re-define them. That's a fallacy!

I am using the words "natural" and "nature" like everybody else is using them.
If that bothers you - then YOU are the odd one out.

Persuasive definition fallacy

natural /ˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/ adjective 1. existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

nature /ˈneɪtʃə/ noun 1. the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

If you don't like the way English speakers use those words, and the way the Oxford dictionary defines those words - write to them. Tell them!

Make them see the error of their understanding (good luck!).

There's no such thing as "right" or "wrong" understanding. There's only understanding within a given a world-view.

[Skepdick]

... things that we claim to be ''supernatural'' and aren't...

supernatural /ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/ adjective attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws

Given this paradigm of thought/understanding. The inner workings of the human mind perfectly satisfy the requirement of being called "supernatural"

Is it beyond scientific understanding? Yes.
Does is obey the laws of natura? No.

It's supernatural.

[henry quirk]

The inner workings of the human mind perfectly satisfy the requirement of being called "supernatural"

Is it beyond scientific understanding? Yes.

Does is obey the laws of natura? No.

It's supernatural.

[commonsense]

The thing about definitions is, idiosyncratic or not, published in a reference volume or not, they have to be agreed upon to be useful in philosophic discussions or in any communication at all.

The problem here seems to be that one forum member in this thread is relying on the Oxford Dictionary to shore up his argument, while everyone else is using the vernacular version of the definition.

Depending on which of these sources is accepted, the conclusion of the argument is acceptable or not, I.e. members on both sides are correct in their own way.

[Skepdick]

The thing about definitions is, idiosyncratic or not, published in a reference volume or not, they have to be agreed upon to be useful in philosophic discussions or in any communication at all.

So which definition do you think one should default to when writing for a broad and diverse English-speaking audience? Say, if you are writing a book for the general populace.

In such a setting the communication will be asynchronous at best, and simplex at worst.

The problem here seems to be that one forum member in this thread is relying on the Oxford Dictionary to shore up his argument, while everyone else is using the vernacular version of the definition.

Are you saying they aren't one and the same? This is preposterous!

The Oxford dictionary is a reputable, descriptive source of the commonly accepted, vernacular use of English words.

Everybody else on the forum is using the words "natural" and "naturalism" in a philosophical sense which is not commonly accepted in the English language.

[commonsense]

The thing about definitions is, idiosyncratic or not, published in a reference volume or not, they have to be agreed upon to be useful in philosophic discussions or in any communication at all.

So which definition do you think one should default to when writing for a broad and diverse English-speaking audience?

Say, if you are writing a book for the general populace.

The problem here seems to be that one forum member in this thread is relying on the Oxford Dictionary to shore up his argument, while everyone else is using the vernacular version of the definition.

Are you saying they aren't one and the same? This is preposterous!

The Oxford dictionary is a reputable, descriptive source of the commonly accepted, vernacular use of English words.

Everybody else on the forum is using the words "natural" and "naturalism" in a philosophical sense which is not commonly accepted in the English language.

You have succinctly highlighted the problem.

[Sculptor]

And I told you where morals came from.

I know. The source of morals you described is NOT natual.

Which is precisely what my argument concludes. Q.E.D!

P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.
P2. It's not impossible to derrive morals.
C. A source of morality exists that it's NOT natural.

... Uummm... it's "derive", just sayin'...

1) support your claim that it is derived.
2) what makes you think human culture is not "natural".

[Sculptor]

The thing about definitions is, idiosyncratic or not, published in a reference volume or not, they have to be agreed upon to be useful in philosophic discussions or in any communication at all.

So which definition do you think one should default to when writing for a broad and diverse English-speaking audience?

Say, if you are writing a book for the general populace.

The problem here seems to be that one forum member in this thread is relying on the Oxford Dictionary to shore up his argument, while everyone else is using the vernacular version of the definition.

Are you saying they aren't one and the same? This is preposterous!

The Oxford dictionary is a reputable, descriptive source of the commonly accepted, vernacular use of English words.

Everybody else on the forum is using the words "natural" and "naturalism" in a philosophical sense which is not commonly accepted in the English language.

You have succinctly highlighted the problem.

It's skeptics problem because he either does ot know what he is talking about, or has failed to offer definitions.
If the thread is a bunch of crap it is because he is an anti-intllectual twat