Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motivations for the non-belief in God
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 40 of 89 (350488)
09-19-2006 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Chiroptera
03-10-2006 6:17 PM


Everyone is an Atheist
The principal motive I see for atheism is honesty. One does not see evidence for deity so one does not believe in deity.
Honesty is a motive all can respect. It's odd, though, how rarely religious people put honesty on the table when they ponder the motives of atheists.
quote:
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Chiroptera, posted 03-10-2006 6:17 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 56 of 89 (355197)
10-08-2006 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Christian7
10-07-2006 9:55 PM


Re: belief a prerequisite for ethics?
Guido Arbia:
Once again, clearly wrong. There are just as many immoral athiests as there are immoral christians. This is not to say that religion doesn't affect morality. What you have to understand is, those immoral christians are not true or genuine about their faith. So they are in essence, not neccessiarily true christians, or if they are, they are not showing it.
But aren't the apologists just defining terms in a way that guarantees the result they want?
The argument I see on the thread so far is this:
Moral Christians are Christians.
Immoral Christians are not really Christians.
Immoral atheists are atheists.
Moral atheists are not really atheists.
Ergo, Christians are more moral than atheists.
Why should anyone find this argument convincing?
It looks like a 'just-so' picture to reassure the already persuaded.
.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Christian7, posted 10-07-2006 9:55 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Christian7, posted 10-08-2006 1:27 PM Archer Opteryx has replied
 Message 59 by jar, posted 10-08-2006 1:40 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 66 of 89 (355220)
10-08-2006 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Christian7
10-08-2006 1:27 PM


Re: belief a prerequisite for ethics?
Guido Arbia:
Wrong, once again.
If you're going to pronounce me 'wrong' you have an obligation to back it up. You didn't.
This has nothing to do with Christian apologetics whatsoever.
But it does. Christian apologetics is what you are doing.
If you don't think what you are doing here qualifies as 'Christian apologetics', explain why. Sweeping dismissal is not a reasoned argument.
Personally, I see no reason why the term should be controversial.
There are some moral and immoral christians as there are athiests, but most likely those christians that are immoral are not really christians. If they are, it is between them and God.
I understand this. I summarized that very argument and showed it to you. Here it is (from the post you seem to think you are contradicting):
quote:
Moral Christians are Christians.
Immoral Christians are not really Christians.
So much for your rebuttal.
I added that another half exists to this argument as I have seen it presented by Christians on this thread:
Immoral atheists are atheists.
Moral atheists are not really atheists.
You have not stated this yourself, to my knowledge. But other Christians have, very clearly, and you have not disowned it. You have not even addressed it. You ignored this part of my post in your intended rebuttal.
I then noted that these definitions of 'true Christian' and 'true atheist' in combination guarantee the conclusion:
quote:
Ergo, Christians are more moral than atheists.
I then asked you:
quote:
Why should anyone find this argument convincing?
To prove me 'wrong' you have to do more than pronounce my summary wrong, quote it incompletely, and then agree 100% with the part you quote.
You have to show me that my summary of the argument is invalid. You already agree (without noticing it, apparently) with the part you actually discussed. That leaves the parts you didn't.
You can prove the summary 'wrong' now in either of two ways:
1. Tell me the second part, about atheists, does not represent your own belief, then state your belief on the matter.
2. Show why the terms 'Christian' and 'atheist' as defined do not guarantee the conclusion.
Either way, I would still appreciate your answer to my question:
quote:
Why should anyone find this argument convincing?
'Wrong' is not a valid answer to the question.
.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Detail.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Christian7, posted 10-08-2006 1:27 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024