|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on Apr 30, 2018 20:54:06 GMT -6
What about it? Explain why it would necessarily follow from my unbelief in gods. And also tell me what it means because I am not sure I understand the term "absolute mortality" outside the context of medical studies.
|
|
|
|
Post by okie on Apr 30, 2018 20:56:55 GMT -6
No existence after death. Once you're dead, you're dead.
A tenant of most denominations of atheism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on Apr 30, 2018 21:01:06 GMT -6
Lots of people believe in reincarnation. So it would not necessarily follow that I believe in no existence after death based on my non-belief in any god you care to name.
Try another one. This is fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by okie on Apr 30, 2018 21:18:41 GMT -6
Not in the "you dead, you gone" denomination of atheism.
You see, it's just like all the other religions; there are many denominations and they all have their own tenants.
|
|
|
|
Post by okie on Apr 30, 2018 21:20:13 GMT -6
Besides, reincarnation implies intelligent design and that definitely isn't a tenant of atheism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on Apr 30, 2018 21:37:10 GMT -6
Name any religion and I will give you a tenet that necessarily follows. I can do this for any of them. You cannot do this simply by knowing a person does not believe in gods. Your first attempt failed. Try another one. Use logical forms. Put it in the form of a syllogism. Here is how your last attempt would look in that form:
1 Believing that when you are dead you're dead is a religious claim.
2 All atheists believe when you're dead, you're dead
3 Therefore, atheists are religious.
The first premise is likely false. The opposite claim may be a religious claim but logically you cannot say that the opposite of a religious claim is a religious claim.
The second premise is clearly false, as I demonstrated. Knowing I am an atheist does not inform you on my views of reincarnation.
Two weak, or patently false, premises do not show that the conclusion necessarily follows.
Learn to think with precision... and you will, with my help, and god's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on Apr 30, 2018 21:45:23 GMT -6
Besides, reincarnation implies intelligent design and that definitely isn't a tenant of atheism. Millions of people disagree. A large portion of the reincarnation crowd are atheists. You can say that Christians believe in the teachings of Christ, and list tenets derived from his teachings, and it would logically follow. Same for Muslims and Mohammed. But you cannot say something about any atheist's beliefs that would be equally and universally true only from knowing they are an atheist. |
|
|
|
Post by okie on May 1, 2018 5:11:43 GMT -6
"The first premise is likely false. The opposite claim may be a religious claim but logically you cannot say that the opposite of a religious claim is a religious claim.
The first tenant is not false. Any conclusion based upon ardor and faith is religious.
So here we have the "when your dead your dead" denomination (let's call them the godless saducees) They are probably the largest denomination. I think this is the one Pastor Hitch tends.
|
|
|
|
Post by okie on May 1, 2018 5:15:29 GMT -6
Besides, reincarnation implies intelligent design and that definitely isn't a tenant of atheism. Millions of people disagree. A large portion of the reincarnation crowd are atheists. You can say that Christians believe in the teachings of Christ, and list tenets derived from his teachings, and it would logically follow. Same for Muslims and Mohammed. But you cannot say something about any atheist's beliefs that would be equally and universally true only from knowing they are an atheist. Nope. Our Webster's definition does not require a deity or sacred text. Your reincarnation atheists (a rather odd bunch) are just a fringe denomination. |
|
|
|
Post by drlefty on May 1, 2018 11:16:21 GMT -6
So what isnt a religion then? You are painting with a REAL broad brush there.
|
|
|
|
Post by okie on May 1, 2018 11:27:39 GMT -6
So what isnt a religion then? You are painting with a REAL broad brush there. Wombats. Wombats are not a religion. |
|
|
|
Post by Mahatma__Ganhdi on May 1, 2018 12:03:41 GMT -6
If there is no evidence of life after death then there is no reason to believe in life after death. To claim there is requires faith.
Suppose there's not any evidence that when you're dead you're dead. In that case, saying with faith that when you're dead you're dead would be just that, a leap of faith.
However, it is not the case that there is no evidence. The more we learn about consciousness it starts to appear that this is likely the case. So like good logical, Bayesian thinkers, we have washed out the priors and we update our point of view as evidence is gathered.
Critical thinking is not ardor and faith. It is reason, it is logical, it is evidence based.
So the first premise seems false, and you didn't even address the second which was demonstrated to be false. If either are false then the conclusion does not necessarily follow.
|
|
|
|
Post by drlefty on May 1, 2018 12:08:15 GMT -6
So what isnt a religion then? You are painting with a REAL broad brush there. Wombats. Wombats are not a religion. So Wombats live forever? |
|
|
|
Post by okie on May 1, 2018 12:39:16 GMT -6
Wombats. Wombats are not a religion. So Wombats live forever? No, Wombats do not care. They do not concern themselves with the question of a supreme being. They don't know. Therefore they are not a religion. |
|
|
|
Post by okie on May 1, 2018 12:41:28 GMT -6
"If there is no evidence of life after death then there is no reason to believe in life after death. To claim there is requires faith."
-To arrive at the affirmative conclusion there is no life after death requires faith as well.
|
|
