Why do atheists spend so much time arguing about the existence of God?

In looking for answers there is a point of diminishing returns, where if a person wants to have a life, he must decide to act on the information that’s available to him at the time of decision. Thus people tend to stick with ideas that have worked for them in the past, even though another idea might have worked better. Seeing as no ideas, at least at this time are without assumptions.

 

Very wise response.

IRT previous poster - I realize youre 18 and still on the road to self-discovery. You see we've all gone through the same process of testing our beliefs and discovering what works for us. Once we've made that decision it's very tough to change, for good or bad. You too will make a decision eventually, we simply can't go through life questioning our beliefs every day. Good luck on your journey

 

well im not really concerned with answers....

im concerned with reasons....

i guess i misrepresented myself with the question question question bit, i was only expressing how it is beneficial to thoroughly evaluate the seemingly intrinsic relevance of some things

im still trying to figure out why im not satisfied with your responses

 

Actually I kind of realized that and tried to respond without answering.

Guess I wasn’t too successful.

I was trying to respond to your thought of “how it is beneficial to thoroughly evaluate the seemingly intrinsic relevance of some things”.

That’s why I said; “In looking for answers there is a point of diminishing returns, where if a person wants to have a life, he must decide to act on the information that’s available to him at the time of decision.”

Just saying that when I was younger, having more time, I tended to spend a lot more time “thoroughly evaluating” but then realized that depending on how thoroughly you evaluate, your life can grind to a halt or continue to flow into the future.

I choose to go with the flow and found that if you start doing something that needs more evaluation, someone will point it out to you.

 

Pardon me for moving backwards and somewhat off track, but I thought this post was just too rich to let it sit there so long without comment.

Even in religions of the Judeo-Christian family, renunciation of God is not an unforgivable sin, as long as the "sinner" eventually returns to the fold. I think people need to follow their consciences, and if a person like Relaxx sincerely believes the stuff he writes, as I'm sure he does, and thinks long and hard about it, where is the "sin"? Except perhaps in not keeping an open mind, overgeneralizing, and occasionally making unsupportable charges of wrongdoing against people ("their evil master plan..."). [/quote]

So show us the syllogism. Many atheists today accept a soft definition of atheism: "I don't believe in God". That's one that nobody can really argue with, except to say you should believe because of arguments X,Y & Z which are never going to prove the case conclusivley. But when somebody says atheism can be established by "simple logic", the believer is entitled to say "Show us the proof". He who asserts must prove.

I think you overstate the case. Definitions are not provable or disprovable, only useful or not useful. People have had trouble defining "God", because "God" is an expression for "Something Big Out There" lots of humans sense or infer and have struggled to express. If something is ineffable, does that mean it doesn't exist?[/quote]

Reason is the distinguishing human faculty, and I question all propostions that are inconsitent with logic and available evidence. As a practical matter, though, I'm also willing to allow a role for experience and intuition, and--yes, faith (i.e., placing an educated bet).

I admit that certain forms of religion are a crippling mind disease that may inflict more suffering and heartbreak than comfort. Reason should never be discouraged, because it's the best way to keep religion honest.

 

I also would like to comment on this:

relaxxx, the subject of God has been debated for thousands of years by the best minds of humanity and yet it has not been proved one way or another. So if you have some kind of new proof otherwise, please bring it out so we all can see it and marvel or else stop making claims you can’t back up.

It should be easy to show us, seeing as it’s “simple logic.”

 

but discouraging reason is exactly what social institutions do!!!!!

 

i got a reason they spend time arguing because it all goes back to when atheists were burned for their beliefs

 

all conditions, sects, and ideologies were persecuted at one point in history or another.....

 

Some more than others. So what to do. Pick one that seems most open and least anti-intellectual. Any organization that says thinking is wrong or blind faith is the ideal has gotta be wrong, so stay away. It's a cult. Nobody's ever accused the Unitarian Univrsalists of being too narrow and anti-rational(they've got Christians,pagans, atheists--you name it), or if you want a Christian experience, there are plenty of mainline Protestant churches that are't too confining. But whatever you do, shop carefully, read broadly, think critically, leave readily.

 

God is the assertion. What is atheism asserting other than pointing out that he who asserted first has so far proven nothing.

You said it, not me. He who asserts must prove, therefore atheists need not assert anything. I have explained my beliefs logically in dozens of posts, I don't have the energy to entertain you any further and I don't need to because, HE WHO ASSERTS MUST PROVE!

Atheists have the right to post messages and finally speak out that those who have asserted, enforced, imposed, and executed for thousands of years have managed to prove nothing.

 

Au Contraire. You made the assertion that atheism is a matter of simple logic--a very bold assertion indeed. Do you think you can then cop out by saying it's somebody else's burden to disprove that? I've never, and will never, say "there is a God". I can only say I believe there is one, which is something quite different. If you phrased your statement "I believe there is no God" or "I think atheism is logically compelling", I'd have no problem, although if you put it the latter way, people would expect some supporting argument rather than a bare assertion. To say that atheism is "simple logic" is patently absurd, for reasons provided in Olderwater Brother's most recent post. (I assume you mean formal logic, not just some arguments that might be convincing to some people). If it were "simple logic", why don't you just put the proof out there instead of pussyfooting around about who has the burden?

 

And what have atheists proved? As for explaining your beliefs logically, well… let's just that's not your forte.

 

okiefreak....

why would the degree of discontentment an irrational idea creates even be considered?

if we could change something as to end sickness -why would we destroy a virus such as Ebola, and choose to keep the flu?

why would we end all instances of homelessness and choose to allow starvation on a grand scale?

why do we remove religion from schools and continue teaching nationalism?

 

Irrational ideas are often created to cope with discontentment. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Maybe we wouldn't.

We remove religion from state schools, because we (the United States, at least) are a secular society in which all relgions or irreligions must be accommodated. We continue teaching nationalism in the public schools because it is a secular religion filling a vacuum. But I think teaching nationalism in this country has declined a lot during the past few decades.

 

You missed a key word in the title. SOME.
Don't be a bigot. =)

But anyways, why do Christians spend so much time talking about the existence of God?


EDIT - whoa, this is far from the OP - point still stands =P

 

so....if a girl contemplated suicide because she was depressed.

irrational idea = suicide
discontentment = depression
cure 1 =rationally removing cause for depression
cure 2 =irrationally removing cause for depression
disease = depression

as a cure is a restoration of health, multiplying irrationality by removing depression in an irrational manner would hardly be a cure

you cant put a bandage on a bleeding leg, shoot the other leg and then call it restoration of health.....

to the "some more than others" statement; discrepancy towards anything is not the degree that one disagrees with a given subject, but that their is disagreement

if someone is shitting on your dinner, you are not concerned with how much they are shitting, you are concerned with the fact that they are shitting on your dinner.

please reconsider this statement.....the united states is nothing close to a secular society

try that "accommodation" stuff in the gay forum, and mention proposition 8
better yet, try it in the history forum

now i am genuinely curious.....

were on earth did you come up with this vacuum theory. that the absence of religion leaves a void and that it is somehow intrinsically beneficial to fill it with more irrelevant bile than what the education systems mandate

reciting the pledge of allegiance and singing the star spangled banner every mourning before class isn't "teaching" nationalism.....neither is singing american songs at the super bowl educational.....

a mind does not handle propaganda with logic....

propaganda is directed towards emotion

 

For many illnesses, especially psychological ones, we have a better success rate with placebos than with "rational" treatments.

Definitely, because I'm not going to eat the dinner after that.

Relative to France, no. Relative to Iran, or Ireland, or Saudi Arabia, we're secular.

What "accommodation stuff is that? I jsut answered as best I could some "off the wall" questions that you addressed to me. These aren't things I'm particularly interested in--certainly not some cause or act I want to take on the road. And when I tell it like it is, that doesn't mean I'm approving of it or telling you the way I think it should be.

The vacuum theory is something I basically pulled out of my ass--pure impressionism--at 1:00 a.m. central time. But note, I didn't say anything about it being beneficial. The pledge of allegiance is a quasi-religious ritual designed to condition students to associate patriotic feelings with the flag. It short circuits reason. I don't think this is a good thing, but habits of loyalty are useful to the authorities in making a society run. By the way, even in heartland states like Oklahoma, the pledge in schools is going out of style. The vacuum has now settled in my head. I'm going to bed.

 

I'm awake and ready for another round. Let me just say, though, that your questions make little sense to me, and when that happens, the answers aren't going to make much sense either. I think the problem is that the hypotheticals and analogies you use have an underlying meaning to you that they don't have to me. For example, if you ask me: If you found a Martian chick in your bedroom, would you kick her out? I'd be inclined to say something flippant like: "it depends. Is she hot or all green and slimy with tentacles?" And then you'd be horrified, because all along you were asking about judging others by their appearance and hospitality to strangers. Actually, of course, if I found a Martian chick in my bedroom, I'd be in my pickup in the next county before you could say "Klatu verata nicto" yellin "Miss Scarlet, Miss Scarlet, the Matians is comin". With that in mind, lets have another look at those questions, starting with Batch #1.:

You follow this up with

I think life is often a matter of tradeoffs, relative gains and losses. Shit on the dinner isn't one of those. Any degree of shit contaminates the meal, and is simply unacceptable. We can't generalize without looking at concrete cases. The question "Why would the degree of discontentment an irrational idea creates even be considered?" is not clearly worded. Irrational ideas often create discontentment; so do rational ones. Generally speaking, it's better to minimize discontentment, but some people are going to be unjustifiably discontented if their pet beliefs are challenged, so tough. People are always going to disagree. Or did I miss something deep?

I'm puzzled by these questions, because they seem like question begging and false dichotomies. Do we now destroy Ebola and keep the flu? I wasn't aware of that. Why do we have to choose between Ebola and the flu? If we can get them both, that would be ideal. If not, pick the one that's likely to have ther higher body count and cause the most damage. What else can we do?

Here the hypothetical seems to accept as fact some questionable propositions: that we do remove religion from schools and continue teaching nationalism. In my country, schools vary considerably in what they teach, but I don't think any of them have actually "removed" religion. In compliance with Supreme Court interpretations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, they're not supposed to impose common prayer in the schools or do anything to endorse religion-- that's all. Kids can still pray together at the flagpole outside, and to themselves during math tests. As for "teaching nationalism", many states have requirements to teach civics, which is typically taught by an athletic coach. I was fortunate to have a coach who was actually knowledgeable and I learned something. There are also those flag salutes, which are a form of teaching. And yes, the purpose is to instill patriotism (nationalism is something a bit different). As I said, my impression is that both the classes and the ceremony are going out of style in some schools, including the ones I attended. So what 's the point? That this is inconsistent with purely objective inquiry? Of course it is. How much damage does it do? Hard to know, but I'd say the damage is superficial, because not much of it sinks in.

I agree. It's behavioral conditioning. A minimum amount of it may be necessary for effective social functioning, but the the price is vulnerability to political manipulation.

I think the confusion here may be our understanding of the term "secular society". I'm not sure what country you're from. I'm of course American, from Oklahoma, the "Buckle of the Bible Belt", where folks are always complaining about the way our national government is pushing "secular humanism". My remarks were referring less to "society' than to the national "polity", specifically the federal courts, which have interpreted the Constitution in a way which, for the most part, precludes establishment of religion, in the sense of religious prayers, services, and displays in public places. So I apologize for sloppy use of language. There is also, however, the "free exercise" clause of the Constitution, which prevents the authorities from interfering with religious practices such as wearing the hijab, crosses, pentagrams, etc., in school.
If "society" refers to the private sector of the United States and its political impact, then, yes, the United States is by far the most religious, non-secular major industrial country in the world, and this religiosity has a way of spilling over into politics. Witness the often hypocritical lip service our politicians pay to God, and the impact of Judeo-Christian based morals on laws such as Proposition 8. Need I say that I think Propostion 8 is an outrage. There must be something unconstitutional about annulling valid marriages, which I regard as "fundamental rights" requiring strict scrutiny review by the courts. But I wouldn't conclude that religion must therefore be eradicated, because I think it can be reformed or held in check, as it was before Reagan.

This one is too vague and general to make sense to me. Are you referring to using religion to remove depression and restore health? If we're talking about clinical depression, some studies found that placebos can be as effective as the standard pills and talk therapies available, so maybe non-rational approaches could help, as well. Would that cure cause other problems that would be as bad or worse than the disease? Maybe so, maybe not. I'd want to see the specific situation and make a judgment in light of the circumstances and available evidence. For example, I have many friends who depend on their Higher Power acquired from Twelve Step programs to keep them out of trouble. Knowing them before and after, I'd say if it works for them, don't mess with it--because they were useless, mean S.O.B.s. before. The price may be a blind spot in thinking about reality, just as most medicine have some possible adverse side effects. Sometimes its worth it. We need to be careful about taking Dumbo's magic feather away when he's in flight.

I explained the rectal origin of the vacuum theory already. 'Nufff said.

In sum, I'm utilitarian and pragmatic in my general outlook. The prime directive is the greatest net happiness for the greatest number of people, modified to allow some Rawlsian concessions to assure protection for the least advantaged, some Kantian concessions to take account of good intentions, and due Christian emphasis on the agapic principle. In other words, I'm not a purist in any sense of the word. Idealistic principles must be judged in terms of how well they work in the real world.

[/quote]

 

After my last posts, I move to amend the topic to "Why Do Atheists and Christians spend so much time arguing about the existence of God?" There's gotta be a twelve-step program for this!