Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Gary Childress]

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

Let the atheist/naturalist apologetics begin.

Edit 1: Fix misspelling of "derrive" (now "derive")
Edit 2: Recant on using my own definition of "impossible" and default to Oxford definition.

What does "natural" mean? Does it mean, not the case "made by us"? Does "nature" mean not conscious? Does "nature" include us or does "nature" not include us? How does the term "nature" differ from "inorganic" or "inanimate" or are they the same?

[Skepdick]

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

Let the atheist/naturalist apologetics begin.

Edit 1: Fix misspelling of "derrive" (now "derive")
Edit 2: Recant on using my own definition of "impossible" and default to Oxford definition.

What does "natural" mean?

If you have any semantic skepticism please see the Oxford dictionary

If you dislike the shared meaning of the words I am using, then do what's necessary to have them changed/re-defined.
Inform the Oxford dictionary of your dissatisfaction; and provide your actual use of the terms you disagree with.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/contact-us

[Gary Childress]

OK so I guess I'm supposed to go with this definition, then:

Natural: existing in nature; not made or caused by humans

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries. ... /natural_1

P1. It's impossible to derive morals from [that which is not made or caused by humans].
P2. It's not impossible to derive morals.
C. A source of morality exists that is NOT [that which is not made or caused by humans].

That sounds like a reasonable conclusion to me for an atheist to accept. Does it to you? Double negatives logically cancel each other out according to fundamental logic. Therefore the conclusion is:

A source of morality exists that is made or caused by humans.

That jives to me.

[Skepdick]

A source of morality exists that is made or caused by humans.

OK. What's that source of morality? That is made or caused by humans.

Do you have a name for it?

[Gary Childress]

A source of morality exists that is made or caused by humans.

OK. What's that source of morality? That is made or caused by humans.

Humans are the source of morality that is made or caused by humans. Do you really need me to help you with logic on this? Any other silly questions, Mr. "scientist"?

[Skepdick]

Humans are the source of morality that is made or caused by humans. Do you really need me to help you with logic on this? Any other silly questions, Mr. "scientist"?

I don't need you to help me with logic. I need you to help me with YOUR logic.

Humans created a source of morality.
I know who created it. Humans did.

What is the name of the creation?
What's the name of the source of morality (that humans created)?

I am only asking because atheists keep saying you don't believe in it...

[Gary Childress]

Humans are the source of morality that is made or caused by humans. Do you really need me to help you with logic on this? Any other silly questions, Mr. "scientist"?

I don't need you to help me with logic. I need you to help me with YOUR logic.

Humans created a source of morality.
I know who created it. Humans did.

What is the name of the creation?
What's the name of the source of morality (that humans created)?

The name of the source of morality that humans created is called "the source of morality".

[Will Bouwman]

Negation is free. Proof of negation isn't. Something atheists don't seem to grok.

Here is your favourite dictionary's definition:

atheism /ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/ noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

And while we are at it, here's another:

disbelief /ˌdɪsbɪˈliːf/ noun
inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

As you can see, there is no commitment to the negation of 'God exists'. As an atheist, I am not saying your supernatural playmate isn't real. I am saying that the evidence you have so far provided isn't sufficiently compelling to persuade me. Since you clearly can't understand that, and how it is true of other claims you make - that you're a scientist policeman, firearm trainer, husband, father with another on the way and who doesn't live in his mother's basement - your hysterical squeaking that until those claims are proven wrong, they are scientific facts, is not even wrong.
It's not rocket science: I don't believe you ≠ I believe the opposite.

[Skepdick]

The name of the source of morality that humans created is called "the source of morality".

OK. Do you believe in the source of morality? Seeming as humans created it (past perfect tense). So it must exist

[Skepdick]

Negation is free. Proof of negation isn't. Something atheists don't seem to grok.

Here is your favourite dictionary's definition:

atheism /ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/ noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

And while we are at it, here's another:

disbelief /ˌdɪsbɪˈliːf/ noun
inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

As you can see, there is no commitment to the negation of 'God exists'. As an atheist, I am not saying your supernatural playmate isn't real. I am saying that the evidence you have so far provided isn't sufficiently compelling to persuade me. Since you clearly can't understand that, and how it is true of other claims you make - that you're a scientist policeman, firearm trainer, husband, father with another on the way and who doesn't live in his mother's basement - your hysterical squeaking that until those claims are proven wrong, they are scientific facts, is not even wrong.
It's not rocket science: I don't believe you ≠ I believe the opposite.

Sorry, I haven't used the word "God" anywhere in my argument.

Why are you bringing this to the table?

As you can see, there is no commitment to the negation of 'God exists'.

Yeah, right. Pull the other one. In classical logic you don't get to negate without commitment.

There's no fence for you to sit on. There is a fence if you switch logics, so if you tell me which logic you are using - then I'll present you with a better argument that fits your way thinking.

[Gary Childress]

The name of the source of morality that humans created is called "the source of morality".

OK. Do you believe in the source of morality? Seeming as humans created it (past perfect tense). So it must exist

What do you mean by "believe in the source of morality [that humans created]"? If humans created a source for morality, then wouldn't there thus be a source for morality?

[Skepdick]

What do you mean by "believe in the source of morality" [that humans created]? If humans created a source for morality, then wouldn't there thus be a source for morality?

Yes. And it would exist. Because the creation is not the creator.

So. Do you believe the source of morality exists?

[Gary Childress]

What do you mean by "believe in the source of morality" [that humans created]? If humans created a source for morality, then wouldn't there thus be a source for morality?

Yes. And it would exist. Because the creation is not the creator.

So. Do you believe the source of morality exists?

I don't know. I haven't encountered a "source" of morality. I only know what seems or else doesn't seem moral to me.

[Skepdick]

What do you mean by "believe in the source of morality" [that humans created]? If humans created a source for morality, then wouldn't there thus be a source for morality?

Yes. And it would exist. Because the creation is not the creator.

So. Do you believe the source of morality exists?

I don't know. I haven't encountered a source of morality. I only know what seems or else doesn't seem moral to me.

You are contradicting yourself. You just said that humans created it.

A source of morality exists that is made or caused by humans.

[Will Bouwman]

Sorry, I haven't used the word "God" anywhere in my argument.

Why are you bringing this to the table?

Ha! So what is your definition of an atheist?