Atheists have less reason to continue living?

Guess what, I disagree and would not.Why? There are a number of reasons, however one is for love of myself rather than love of a god. You are, as has been noted, a very scary person if you believe as you state that you do.Since your behaviour is so based on your belief in god it might be best if you stayed away from the science based threads. There is a risk that the issues there might cause you to doubt some of what you believe. None of us want to be responsible for the consequences of that.

And this is exactly what atheists do to theists all the time...... If I simply dismissed critisizms against Christianity because they defended me no one would take me seriously....... I never said this. Because I know atheists can feel love......because there's a loving God who made you in his image. It should be the atheists that are saying what you've attributed to me, if they really believed what they say and were honest. More or less, yes. Nothing illogical can fit into an honest atheist's worldview......the only absolute to an atheist is logic. No you can't......because you've never been in a situation where morality becomes a practical hinderance. You've never been on a desert island where there's a hot nun who's in a coma........and she's the only woman you'll ever see again.......and they only way you'll ever get layed again is by taking advantage of her. I don't know how long ANY man could hold out under those circumstances.......and I certainly don't see a reason why an atheist should even try.

It is........but it's a subjective morality of convenience......which I think most would agree isn't morality at all.

Wow, i've never seen a topic progress so fast! I only posted in the proposed new topic forum a few hours ago, and we're already into the 5th page! Also, we're completely and hopelessly off topic! I'm more than happy to discuss the completely logical basis for morality (Crashfrog seemed to have the exact same thought as me on this topic), but there is already a thread for morality without god.In this thread I asked what basis there is to say that Christians have more reason to live than Atheists. So far, Rusty hasn't answered this question at all, not even begun to answer this question. What I wanted to know was, as a christian, what makes you fight to stay alive (and as such delay any possible entry into heaven). And more specifically, what reasons do christians have to fight to stay alive that atheists don't have.Rusty did bring up a point I would like to highlight (i'll reply to that post next, as it highlights my point). Ironically, this post was claimed as off-topic...but it's the most on-topic post so far! lol.

Now, the above post is a Christian rationalisation for infanticide. More generally, it points to the fact that death to a christian, (even when violent, terrifying, and painful such as being mauled by a bear), is better than those children having lived! Why not have everyone mauled by a bear, afterall they'll all go to heaven? (Now I don't want this to degrade into discussions about who will and won't go to heaven theologically. Just assume that they will, as Rusty did in the above example).[Added in edit]Just so you don't have to go searching for the context of the above quote, Rusty's rationalisation referred to the children that were mauled by the bear, and how such an act could be considered "good".This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 11-01-2004 05:23 PM

And, from a logical atheist point of view, this is completely illogical......and, moreover, can be a sign of weakness. Just ask Nitzche. You keep trying to paint me as asserting that atheists are evil, when I'm actually doing the exact opposite. I'm saying that atheists are good.......illogically good, and, therefore, intellectually dishonest.

RustyShakelford,Your claim concerning the logical end of atheism is one I find interesting, but I do not completely follow you logic, as you have stated only your conclusion.Is it your assumption that morality comes only from a deity? If that is so, then your argument would look like this:1. God defines morality.
2. Atheists deny god and do not follow his dictums.
3. Therefore, atheists deny morality.Is this a correct restatement of your position? I will proceed upon your reply.Your second (or perhaps the second part of your conclusion) is that hedonism is the only possible lifestyle for an atheist. Thus:1. Atheists deny morality.
2. Without morality, all beings will act purely in self interest and for their own pleasure (i.e. hedonism).
3. Therefore, all atheists will act out of hedonistic interest.Again, is this a correct summation?I am trying to completely understand your stance before attempting to address it with you.

quote:

---

And this is exactly what atheists do to theists all the time......

---

And they are wrong for doing so. I never attack a theist unless they first attack my beliefs. Believe it or not, atheists don't have missionaries, nor do they need them. The only time atheists seem to attack theists is when theists try to legislate religion, of which creationism in schools is one facet that this website is dedicated to.

quote:

---

I never said this. Because I know atheists can feel love......because there's a loving God who made you in his image. It should be the atheists that are saying what you've attributed to me, if they really believed what they say and were honest.

---

Or how about "Love exists". What is wrong with that? Consciousness exists, yet it is without a real explanation. Sapience exists, yet it is not fully understood. Although there may be a logical explanation for all of the above, as of yet there is no explanation. Saying "I don't know" does not mean one is abandoning logic, but rather lacks a logical explanation. If one is illogical, then one would ascribe "love" to something untestable and uncharacterized, a supernatural deity for example. An atheist would be illogical if they ascribed love to something to which they could not test.

quote:

---

Nothing illogical can fit into an honest atheist's worldview......the only absolute to an atheist is logic.

---

This is a logical statement: "I know that love exists, but there is not, as of yet, a logical explanation. However, this does not mean, logically, that love does not exist." A purely logical explanation.

quote:

---

No you can't......because you've never been in a situation where morality becomes a practical hinderance. You've never been on a desert island where there's a hot nun who's in a coma........and she's the only woman you'll ever see again.......and they only way you'll ever get layed again is by taking advantage of her. I don't know how long ANY man could hold out under those circumstances.......and I certainly don't see a reason why an atheist should even try.

---

I do not believe in God and I wouldn't rape the nun. Why you ask? Because it is wrong. Given the sexual escapades of the Catholic priesthood I wouldn't be pointing any fingers. It would seem that sexual misconduct knows no religious boundaries.The problem I see with your position is that w/o God we wouldn't know what is right or wrong. This is a serious problem. If we don't know what is right or wrong how do we know that God is moral. How does a christian know that the Bible conveys a superior morality? According to you, we can't know since humans, unto themselves, have no sense of morality. Therefore, humans have to know what is right or wrong in order to claim that the Bible is trustworthy.For instance, Cain knew that it was wrong to kill Abel without being told so by the Bible, and he was punished. When Adam and Eve ate of the Tree, God proclaimed "They know of good and evil". Even according to the Bible, atheists know the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. Do you disagree with the Bible?

So they were punished for calling a Holy Prophet "baldy" by being condemned to eternal life in paradise. Yeah, that makes perfect sense to me.Or maybe not quite.....

Let me get this straight.......despite all evidence, you are certain you wouldn't act in an animalistic fashion (and, remember, you as an atheist assert that there is no part of you that isn't animal) if social strictures were removed.You KNOW this to be true, despite all evidence.......there's a little word that describes this......it begins with "f"....... Damn skippy I'm scary.........I'm the the child of 4 billion years worth of survivalist ancestory........we shouldn't expect anything less of me than to be one scary mofo.But I am also made in the image of God, and, for love's sake, I have dedicated my whole being to shunning evil.......Your worldview, if you were intellectually honest, would consist of the above statement spoken about yourself, except ending before the second paragraph.

That's because atheists are just like theists.......highly disturbed when you raise points against their FAITH.........

Are you saying that atheists have as much reason to live as theists? You're right. Never said otherwise. In fact, they have a much bigger reason to live than theists......fear of death......

Well, sure, when you offer the age-old Stranded on a Desert Island with a Hot Nun in a Coma dilemma. But not every situation is as morally clear-cut as that one.regards,
Esteban Hambre

No, it isn't. My position is that:1. Absolute morality is illogical.
2. The only absolute for an atheist is logic.
3. The logical conclusion of atheism is immorality. No. In fact, my argument is the exact opposite:1. Atheism logically leads to immorality.
2. Atheists are not particularly immoral.
3. Atheists are illogical.

And you have been given naturalistic, logical reasons for being good. So it is, according to some of us, logical to be good.It is done because:
Evolution has ingrained social behaviours in us.
We have been taught to behave in such a manner.
We identify part of our personalities with the good behaviours.If we do not conform to the set of standards determined by out societies in numbers that are too great then the society and it's benefits will fail. That is a logical reason for supporting the morality.As noted before, which you don't seem to have commented on, game theory gives not only logical reasons for the rules of behaviour but mathematical backing for them.However, it also allows for deviation from them and the fact that abberant individuals may well gain by deviating. It seems that the idea of a god is useful for keeping some of those abberant individuals in line. You, it appears, are claiming to be on of those abberations.