Illness proves atheism incoherent ? WTF
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-09-2014, 07:52 PM
RE: Illness proves atheism incoherent ? WTF
My take on this...

The human body is evolved to function in a way beneficial to its survival and to a certain degree, the society's survival and reproduction.

When, either through hereditary or environmental causes, it functions in a manner which may lead to its destruction, or the society's destruction, we would call that a malfunction, illness, condition etc, etc.

So it doesn't necessarily imply a creator, or an inherent purpose... Simply a harmful deviation from the norm.

I would respond by asking why this creator would create organisms which significantly impede our ability to fulfill this supposed "purpose". Is the Ebola virus really necessary to his plan?

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2014, 07:56 PM
RE: Illness proves atheism incoherent ? WTF
(17-09-2014 10:45 AM)Doubter Wrote:  Hi! I came across an argument that looks like some sleight of hand.
What's your opinion on it?

Quote:(1) when one says a thing is malfunctionning, one projects purpose to it:
we basically imply it failed to accomplish the aim it was created for.
(2) Therefore, to say someone is unhealty or mentally ill pressuposes their body/mind doesn't work as it should, implying it was somehow intended to work in some way and not in another.
(3) If there is no Creator(s), our body are not designed to do anything: our brain is not intended to think our eyes aren't intended to see; our organs just do what they do.
(4)Therefore, atheists can't have non-arbitrary/objective ground for distinguishing illness from a different way for functionning.

The body isn't working because it isn't. If it were functioning it would be able to survive to its best extent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2014, 08:26 PM
RE: Illness proves atheism incoherent ? WTF
(17-09-2014 10:45 AM)Doubter Wrote:  Hi! I came across an argument that looks like some sleight of hand.
What's your opinion on it?

Quote:(1) when one says a thing is malfunctionning, one projects purpose to it:
we basically imply it failed to accomplish the aim it was created for.
(2) Therefore, to say someone is unhealty or mentally ill pressuposes their body/mind doesn't work as it should, implying it was somehow intended to work in some way and not in another.
(3) If there is no Creator(s), our body are not designed to do anything: our brain is not intended to think our eyes aren't intended to see; our organs just do what they do.
(4)Therefore, atheists can't have non-arbitrary/objective ground for distinguishing illness from a different way for functionning.

Things don't malfunction at all.
If one dumps the idea that "what it's all about, is individuals" things function very well. Biological systems actually work quite well, in general. They promote the evolution of species. Individuals malfunction and die, eventually, just as they SHOULD, but in general they serve their purpose. They reproduce, and promote survival and progress. Evolution works because mutations are possible. Sometimes that's unfortunate for individuals, but beneficial for the species. Bodies do EXACTLY what they should. They reproduce, and very slowly evolve, and traits that promote survival are selected. Brains and eyes promote survival perfectly. They do EXACTLY what they should. Healthy bodies promote survival.

Atheism is irrelevant. It's a pile of Presuppositionalist garbage.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2014, 09:05 PM
RE: Illness proves atheism incoherent ? WTF
I need to stop reading these threads Dodgy

Everytime I hear a shitty, flawed argument a little piece of me goes bitter inside. There won't be any optimism and good will left in me if I keep at my current rate of face palming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
17-09-2014, 10:03 PM
RE: Illness proves atheism incoherent ? WTF
(17-09-2014 09:05 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I need to stop reading these threads Dodgy

Everytime I hear a shitty, flawed argument a little piece of me goes bitter inside. There won't be any optimism and good will left in me if I keep at my current rate of face palming.

Nonono, that's not bitterness, that's TBI.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2014, 10:09 PM
RE: Illness proves atheism incoherent ? WTF
Easy, Our body or anything for that matter, does not need to have been created in order to function.

Nothing created a flower, yet it does what a flower does regardless. If we are sick, it is interrupting with what our body does naturally. Basically...live and keep us alive and healthy.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2014, 10:18 PM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2014 10:35 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Illness proves atheism incoherent ? WTF
(17-09-2014 10:45 AM)Doubter Wrote:  Hi! I came across an argument that looks like some sleight of hand.
What's your opinion on it?

Quote:(1) when one says a thing is malfunctionning, one projects purpose to it:
we basically imply it failed to accomplish the aim it was created for.
(2) Therefore, to say someone is unhealty or mentally ill pressuposes their body/mind doesn't work as it should, implying it was somehow intended to work in some way and not in another.
(3) If there is no Creator(s), our body are not designed to do anything: our brain is not intended to think our eyes aren't intended to see; our organs just do what they do.
(4)Therefore, atheists can't have non-arbitrary/objective ground for distinguishing illness from a different way for functionning.

This is a bit akin to the argument from morality. The basic idea in both is that without some divine perspective (typically creator and/or ruler of reality), there is no objective standard for making value-judgement based claims, and that if we want to make any value-judgement based claims, we have to acknowledge such a being.

It's bollocks, for at least five reasons.

First, illness can be understood in terms of disruption of the body's, sustainable functioning. We don't need some sort of grand objective design to say "hey, this dude's worshiping at the porcelain throne, maybe we should have a category for when he's fucked up like that" even without a value judgement over whether this is good or bad. Same for colds. Same for cancer. Same for ebola. The concept of illness still has value.

Second, what the hell is wrong with us have a subjective opinion on the subject, or even building up a society-wide or species-wide subjective consensus or convention? Nada. Zilch. But that's not enough for the people making these arguments, because... well... because... our categorizations have to be magical? Maybe?

Third, assuming that such a divine being exists as the arguer imagines, what the hell distinguishes ITS view from being an arbitrary, subjective opinion, just like ours? Take your time on this. Is it because you SAY that its view is objective, while ours is merely subjective? Why? Is it because it supposedly created us? Do I and my (hypothetical) wife then get to say what our child's (hypothetical) purpose for existence is, since we created it? Does that make him becoming a lawyer rather than a scientist, like we determined he should be, an example of sickness?

Fourth, if such a being existed, you'd still have all your work ahead of you in determining what IT regarded as illness, and doing so in a manner where you could show your work to others and get them to agree with you. You can start by convincing the more nutjobby Christians that autism is an illness and not possession, and they should not exorcise beat the demons out of small children. (Please start there. Can we at least agree that should be a priority?)

And fifth? Even if it's just a subjective opinion, we're ALLOWED a subjective opinion, dammit, and we're allowed to express it, and allowed to convince others of it. We're going to keep on doing just that. That's human nature, and no apologist gobbledegook is going to stop that. Nor can such acrobatics make human nature imply the existence of a god.

EDIT: Oh, and sixth. Why not skip a step? If you insist on some supernaturally established objective standards for morality or health, why not have that self-establishing WITHOUT a god, similar to Tao or Karma. Something that needed no god to make it happen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: