User:Brianpansky/sandbox

I hope I'm doing this sandbox thing right...

Not ALL conceptions of god!
Ok, I thought maybe it would be cool to have an article about the silly thing some theists do where they declare an atheist argument that wasn't directed at them to "fail" because it doesn't address their specific concept of a god.

A reasonable person should be able to see why this is silly:
 * There are so many different versions of god or gods
 * Arguments do not need to address all of them at once
 * It is useful to address specific ones, to show how those specific ones have evidence against them
 * The theist in this situation wasn't even the person being argued with

Though this mix-up usually doesn't become a big deal.

Modo Hoc Fallacy
Basically when people say if ALL we are is JUST JUST JUST atoms (did I mention JUST? that wonderful word to add before anything, instantly making it sound terrible?)), life is meaningless, everything is ruined!!!111.

From wikipedia:


 * The modo hoc (or "just this") fallacy is the informal error of assessing meaning to an existent based on the constituent properties of its material makeup while omitting the matter's arrangement.[3] For instance, metaphysical naturalism states that while matter and motion are all that comprise man, it cannot be assumed that the characteristics inherent in the elements and physical reactions that make up man ultimately and solely define man's meaning; for, a cow which is alive and well and a cow which has been chopped up into meat are the same matter but it is obvious that the arrangement of that matter clarifies those different situational meanings.[3]

Sense and Goodness Without God
It seems to me this is a book important enough to have its own page. Certainly more important than The Atheist Afterlife book.

It presents a "complete worldview", seriously takes on philosophical concepts such as the real grounding of morality, the ground of all being, epistemology, meaning of life etc. It does all of this while pointing out the higher likelihood of Naturalism for all our observations of these things, and the unlikelihood of supernatural explanations being correct. There's nothing left for other religions after this book, you might as well call it the closest approximation in existence to a correct religion in a book. It possibly is that.