Atheists have less reason to continue living?

Theres absolutely no reason to fear death. When i'm watching a program I really love on television I don't want it to end, but I don't fear it ending. As it is with life. Being dead is nothing to be afraid of (although the process of dying could be since it may be painful, but that is no different for theists). But other than that, we're in agreement. Christians have no theological reasons for wanting to stay alive. In fact death takes them to "a better place", so why fight it? It seems you're not in as much agreement with Buz's post afterall

Then why are you on these boards? The purpose of these boards is, basically, atheism vs. theism debate. Atheists also try to legislate atheism. Personally, I think evolution should be taught in schools......but not evolution with an atheistic bent, like it is now. It's an argument from faith. Why is it so much harder to go from there to "God is love" and then to "therefore, God exists"? Not according to atheists.......it's just an illusion. Atheists are illogical for beleiving love exists, period. The logic of your statement ends right there. 4 billion years of evolution says different.........odds are, you wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for rape........ Because God is not moral, God is morality itself. No, but you do.......which is why you're being illogical.

---

"Atheists are just like theists; they find it highly disturbing when you try to weaken their faith." Myself, a couple minutes ago

The ancient Hebrews didn't even believe in hell.......

Other than to be sarcastic, I see no point in this post.......

Very good. I accept the first proposition of your first argument. I must, however question the second. I understand logic and use it effectively and often. Logic is a method by which one may ensure that a conclusion can validly follow a set of propositions. A false conclusion can be logical if the propositons are false.I am an atheist, and I do not hold logic as an absolute. I don't because I know what it really is.That being said, your argument is wrong because your second premise is false, since I am an atheist and I do not hold logic as an absolute (one must be careful in using absolutes as premises, it makes the statement falsifiable by a single counter-example).Your second argument is also flawed. Your first proposition is the conclusion from your first argument, and your first argument is flawed, therefore, the second argument is also flawed.That's logic. That's how it works, and your position doesn't stand up to it. That doesn't mean your argument isn't true, of course. Logic is not a test of truth. However, paradoxically in this case, that fact is the very one that makes your argument untrue in addition to it's being invalid.This message has been edited by mikehager, 11-01-2004 06:16 PMThis message has been edited by mikehager, 11-01-2004 06:17 PM

All depends on how you define "good". I certainly don't define it as a subjective morality of convenience. And that is a subjective morality of convenience. Doesn't stop you from raping the proverbial comatose nun (throw that into a conversation randomly and I bet you'd get some interesting reactions).......

You mean that "fear of reprisal" is the only reaon YOU'LL accept. That's because you don't believe in morality - only reward and punishment.

What a coincidence, Jason, I find no point in any of your posts that claim that atheists think that love, or consciousness, or good and bad are just illusions. When we tell you that you're wrong, you merely accuse us of intellectual dishonesty. When we take offense to being called liars, you say we're just trying to defend our faith. Have fun while it lasts.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Get back to me when you're on your death bed and tell me you don't fear dying....... Nope, the last hundred posts or so have kind of been off-topic.......if Nosy wasn't so engaged in the convo himself, he probably woulda axed this thread hours ago.

Hager, if logic isn't your absolute, then how can you claim that logic can explain away God?If the last hundred posts are any indication, logic can't even explain away a human emotion.....

I was not using logic to explain away god. I was using logic to show how your argument was invalid. Do you have any response to that?This message has been edited by mikehager, 11-01-2004 06:36 PM

Not a coincidence...............in fact, that's my whole point...........you can't logically defend love, yet you assert that love exists. When you can't logically defend something, yet you believe in it, that's, by definition, faith.It becomes clearer and cleaerer to me that atheists base as much of what they believe on preconception and faith as theists.......

---

"Atheists are just like theists; they find it highly disturbing when you try to weaken their faith." Myself, a couple minutes ago

Hager, if you can't logically explain away God, how can you be an atheist?

That is irrelevant to my discussion of your arguments. Can you address them or not?

Jason, I mean Rusty, writes,

quote:

---

that's my whole point...........you can't logically defend love, yet you assert that love exists.

---

Oh, that's your whole point? I thought your point was that atheists don't think that things like love (or ethics or whatever) exist in the first place. Now you say that atheists think that love exists, but that it's not logically defensible. I'm so fascinated by all the things I never realized we atheists believed. And in fact, nothing you've said in this entire thread has been logically defensible. Yet, unfortunately, it exists.regards,
Esteban Hambre