quisquose Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 It seems you are implying that the person who believes in an afterlife is not going to do anything good unless they think they are going to be rewarded for it. I don't believe that. I doubt wether they all spend their every day life thinking about an afterlife,I know i certainly don't. Does it really sound like I'm implying that? I certainly don't think so, and I don't think I implied it either. However, we are often told by religious apologists that their religion does motivate them to be more good. How exactly, if it's not because they think that they are being observed? If it's true that religion motivates people to be good, then logically the altruistic non-religious person must be more altruistic. When a religious apologist who suggests that "religion motivates altruism" is challenged with "then the altruistic atheist must be more altruistic", the response is always denial with the typical "cake'n eat it" special pleading that religion demands. I don't think people are more or less altruistic, or more or less bad, because of their religious beliefs or lack of, but religious apologists are often claiming that their religion does have an effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I don't know. Maybe it's because you're an hypocritical atheists who doesn't take criticism well. What a profound and insightful gem! What can I say? You got me bang to rights. I am "an hypocritical atheists." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 If quantum physics has determined that human assumption becomes irrelevant when applied to the unknown phenomena that exists outside of the realm of normal human experience, why is it that the logical argument which concurs that arguments such as the creationism argument are flawed by contradiction making them negative arguments, is still being used to discredit creationism? Why is it that human logic remains relevant to the nature of unknown phenomena that exists outside of the realm of normal human experience? It has recently been discovered that a lot of phenomena are governed by principles new to our understanding, and these principles are still only partially understood. However, this does not mean that any illogical BS anyone cares to invent can now be justified as being governed by the laws of quantum physics."Ooh, i've got an invisible head in another dimension. Quantum physics, innit." Creationism neither conforms to conventional logic nor the laws of quantum physics. Because creationists - who rarely possess a good understanding of any scientific discipline - try to justify creationism with conventional logic, it is on that level which it is generally challenged. I'm sure if any were bold enough to use quantum theory in an attempt to back up their claims, there would be plenty of people with a genuine understanding of physics who would be only too willing to expose their charade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Does it really sound like I'm implying that? I certainly don't think so, and I don't think I implied it either. However, we are often told by religious apologists that their religion does motivate them to be more good. How exactly, if it's not because they think that they are being observed? If it's true that religion motivates people to be good, then logically the altruistic non-religious person must be more altruistic. When a religious apologist who suggests that "religion motivates altruism" is challenged with "then the altruistic atheist must be more altruistic", the response is always denial with the typical "cake'n eat it" special pleading that religion demands. I don't think people are more or less altruistic, or more or less bad, because of their religious beliefs or lack of, but religious apologists are often claiming that their religion does have an effect. Allright then you've explained. Sorry if i misunderstood your motives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Allright then you've explained. Sorry if i misunderstood your motives. Okay now I'm confused, I thought we were talking about JFKvsNIXON's post ! The one where he said Christians do stuff to get into heaven and atheists do stuff because they know it's the right thing to do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I'm confused about everything relating to the unknown phenomena, aka- God. How is God a "phenomena" anyway? Can we observe him/her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Okay now I'm confused, I thought we were talking about JFKvsNIXON's post ! The one where he said Christians do stuff to get into heaven and atheists do stuff because they know it's the right thing to do! I was replying to quisquose, i quoted his post in my reply. I replied to JFK before that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 What is it that defines 'being an atheist' anyhow? Is it simply having no belief in God, or is there more to it than that? Why does this bother you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 22, 2012 Author Share Posted January 22, 2012 Your casual use of the word implies that you aren't using it yourself. Would it not be better to go back to basic principles before you start on the origins of the universe? Here goes: What logic or other terms are you using to support the existence of a God? I don't need to return to the basics principles, my understanding of the logical argument which concludes the creationism argument is a negative argument is sound. But you're conveniently snipping sections that you'd rather avoid answering I see. Is it that you're unable to explain why logic would apply to the nature of the unknown phenomena which exists outside the realm of the human experience?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 You really don't have the first clue do you? If you're remotely interested in anything that I've said then it's all above. Don't take this the wrong way, but it's so plain to pretty much everyone else on the thread that you just don't see it, and won't accept the offer of help to build the picture and understanding from the ground up. I don't have the time or inclination to deal with such pointless belligerence. Others might be more patient with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.