We are part of the universe, as are all creatures. We are not aimless, so nether is "the cosmos".
But isn't a car also a part of the universe? If the whole and the parts must all share the same characteristics, shouldn't the car also be conscious? Or, if you think the car is unconscious and without purpose or intent, then by your argument, so is the universe. If cars are not purposive, neither is the cosmos.
"The fallacy of composition occurs when one makes the mistake of attributing to a group (or a whole) some characteristic that is true only of its individual members (or its parts), and then makes inferences based on that mistake."
Dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. ..so it all comes down to the source of the authority. That is what needs to be established.
The source is not relevant regarding whether a proclamation is dogmatic or not, just the nature of the claim.
Regards your "birth control" objection, where is the source of authority for this "fatwa" or ruling?
You didn't quote what you are referring to. My only mention of birth control to my recollection was naming it among the measures instituted by the church to keep fertile wombs pregnant. Forbidding birth control was one element of that program. I listed over a half dozen others previously (forbidding divorce, homosexuality, rhythm method, masturbation, withholding sex, and later, contraception and abortion):
"Pope Pius XI declared that contraception was inherently evil and any spouse practicing any act of contraception “violates the law of God and nature” and was “stained by a great and mortal flaw."
we are all human, and I think we shouldn't be too hasty in thinking others are inferior because they "turn to God".
I don't see too many humanists judging believers for being believers. For example, I've never indicated that I consider you to be an inferior person for being a believer. My criticism of you has been your unwillingness to explain why you considered the ideas of mine you reject incorrect. You're content with some variation of you just don't see it that way. And I don't demean you for that, either. I just tell you that the debate is over whenever you make that choice, that it ends with the last plausible, unrebutted claim, which is always mine given that you never rebut.
I consider that a less effective way to resolve differences, because it doesn't do that, and I consider critical analysis a superior way to do that - really the only way - but it's not a judgment of character.
I consider them to be the lucky ones.
I see it the other way around. I count myself fortunate to have escaped religion and found atheistic humanism (one can be a humanist with a god belief, but he has to reject most if not all religious dogma).
There's another RF poster with whom I have this discussion from time to time. He had some personal problems that he resolved with a 12-step program and found God in the process. I don't begrudge him that, and wouldn't take that from him if I could. But he's frustrated that people like me just aren't interested in becoming a theist with him, because to him, it saved his life. I eventually had to explain to him that he was like a guy whose vision benefitted from glasses, and with them he could see in focus, and thought everybody needs a pair. I explained that refractive lenses would degrade the vision of the person who already sees clearly without them. Like you, he considers himself the lucky one. But I see it the other way around. As lucky as it is to get glasses you need, it is preferable to have no need that glasses could meet.
