|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Jun 22, 2008 22:28
"Atheists reject the existence of heaven. They are generally more
concerned with the effect that such a belief has on society.
Some atheists have viewed the notion of heaven as a sort of "opiate of
the masses"—a tool employed by humans to cope with their lives' misery—
or "opiate for the masses"—a tool employed by authorities to bribe
their subjects into a certain way of life by promising a reward after
death. The anarchist Emma Goldman expressed this view when she wrote,
"Consciously or unconsciously, most theists see in gods and devils,
heaven and hell; reward and punishment, a whip to lash the people into
obedience, meekness and contentment."
|
| Show full article (3.58Kb) |
|
| | 7 Comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Jun 22, 2008 22:46
>
> Short also argues that, atheists tend not to focus upon the concept of
> existence beyond life, because, if one dies with nothing beyond one's
> life, then whether someone is good or bad, they get the same result,
> and the only logical course of action for any person to live would be
> nihilism, to live for oneself without regard to how it affects others.
Circumstantial ad Hominem
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to
attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making
it simply out of self interest and or circumstances. In some cases,
this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's
circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation,
ethnic background, etc.) instead of and in place of the truth or
falsity of the claim being made.
|
| Show full article (1.95Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Jun 22, 2008 23:20
>> Short also argues that, atheists tend not to focus upon the concept of
>> existence beyond life, because, if one dies with nothing beyond one's
>> life, then whether someone is good or bad, they get the same result,
>> and the only logical course of action for any person to live would be
>> nihilism, to live for oneself without regard to how it affects others.
>
> Immortalist:
> Circumstantial ad Hominem
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ErrolErrol Date: Jun 23, 2008 03:13
On Jun 23, 8:20 am, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:>>> Short also argues that, atheists tend not to focus upon the concept of
>>> existence beyond life, because, if one dies with nothing beyond one's
>>> life, then whether someone is good or bad, they get the same result,
>>> and the only logical course of action for any person to live would be
>>> nihilism, to live for oneself without regard to how it affects others.
>
>> Immortalist:
>> Circumstantial ad Hominem
immort is saying that someones motivation for promoting a particular
philosophy neither validates nor invalidates it.
>Short also argues that, atheists tend not to focus upon the concept of
>existence beyond life, because, if one dies with nothing beyond one's
>life, then whether someone is good or bad, they get the same result,
The idea that it's not fair does not make it true or false
|
| Show full article (1.49Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Jun 23, 2008 10:08
On Jun 23, 6:13 am, Errol gmail.com> wrote:> On Jun 23, 8:20 am, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:
>>>>> Short also argues that, atheists tend not to focus upon the concept of
>>>> existence beyond life, because, if one dies with nothing beyond one's
>>>> life, then whether someone is good or bad, they get the same result,
>>>> and the only logical course of action for any person to live would be
>>>> nihilism, to live for oneself without regard to how it affects others.
>
>>> Immortalist:
>>> Circumstantial ad Hominem
>
>> indeed.
>
>
> immort is saying that someones motivation for promoting a particular
> philosophy neither validates nor invalidates it.
>
>>Short also argues that, atheists tend not to focus upon the concept of ...
|
| Show full article (2.06Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Jun 24, 2008 00:02
>> Anyway, what is your own opinion on what you just wrote?
insanity all around.
what is your opinion on your opinion?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ErrolErrol Date: Jun 24, 2008 02:08
On Jun 24, 9:02 am, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:>>> Anyway, what is your own opinion on what you just wrote?
>
> insanity all around.
>
> what is your opinion on your opinion?
>>> Anyway, what is your own opinion on what you just cut and pasted?
would be more correct
I wouldn't ask for your opinion on what you personally composed
yourself, because that is truly the same as asking what your opinion
is about your opinion.
However I realised you had cut and pasted quite a bit and thought you
were simply presenting it as a topic for debate.
nice try tho; i think you thought you'd got me on something you could
sink your teeth into)
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Jun 24, 2008 17:30
On Jun 24, 5:08 am, Errol gmail.com> wrote:> I wouldn't ask for your opinion on what you personally composed
> yourself, because that is truly the same as asking what your opinion
> is about your opinion.
>
> However I realised you had cut and pasted quite a bit and thought you
> were simply presenting it as a topic for debate.
i guess it was confusing to present the rebuttal since it might of
implied that it was a successful rebuttal.
i'm down with the: "Some atheists have argued that a belief in a
reward after death is poor motivation for moral behavior while alive,
arguing that "It is rather more noble to help people purely out of
concern for their suffering than it is to help them because you think
the Creator of the Universe wants you to do it, or will reward you for
doing it, or will punish you for not doing it. [The] problem with this
linkage between religion and morality is that it gives people bad
reasons to help other human beings when good reasons are available"
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
