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

Well no, if everyone did it, we'd all be giving of ourselves to each other; just as, in Smith's model, everyone is out to get whatever they can from everyone, so theoretically, what's being taken keeps on moving but doesn't "pool" more in one place or another. A problem only begins to arise when you don't have a population who are all equally selfish or all equally altruistic, or who don't have equal means to express that altruism/selfishness. Which is pretty much all the time.

But I definitely agree that people can only be so selfless before it starts to harm them. It bothers me that the notion of just being selfless is so glamourised and romanticised, as if there is no real injustice in the world and it's all just about your perspective. Even if everyone being selfless could create an ideal world, it's pointless to speculate, because it'll never happen, just as we'll never have a world where everyone is equally selfish - someone will always either be more selfish than everyone else, or less so.

Not sure I understand what you'd mean, but I'd say that the fact we might average out to be better off doesn't necessarily qualify as success if you're not an economist. Great if the wealth garnered is well apportioned on the basis of merit, responsibility, ingenuity, opportunity, etc., but if everyone's richer on average because the population has halved due to cholera, it's a bit of an own goal.

 

Well, you can't prove it, but you might persuade him that it was reasonable to assume. Maybe not of the monster, but negative reinforcement helps.

I think the thing is, the universe isn't knowable, not in the way that a single object within it might be. While rationality may preside, humans are limited by so many things - mortality, natural bias derived from our modes of perception, linear time, order of events, etc. We rely on learnt knowledge and commit our own deductions to text because we know a person can't hope to progress far on their own, starting from square one with each new life.

The relevance of this is that our knowledge is always incomplete, always has been and probably always will be. The only rational reaction to this is to doubt, and the rational, inhuman reaction to doubt is to wait for it to be dispelled. Humans get frustrated if they can't progress though. We have no proof that the next ten seconds will follow the same physical laws as the preceding ten seconds - we just have to hope that they will, based on the accumulated evidence. We observe that universal laws are consistent, and so when they appear inconsistent, we assume that we've misread those laws, rather than that they simply changed.

So, in this environment, I'd say that it's entirely possible that we could be persuaded of things that aren't true. To be honest, it seems inevitable.

I guess because "rational" is as much a label as a real thing. Plenty of people think they're rational, declare themselves rational, just as plenty of people mistake their own reasoning for logic. It seems like semantics because it is, but semantics are important when you're talking about the difference between something being arguable and something being the (only) logical outcome.

Through lack of information, we are more or less incapable of logic in most situations. Some people will insist that a solution to a problem is logical or illogical based on incredibly subjective morals. Some would insist that it's illogical to solve the problems of the Earth's ecosystem by killing as many humans as possible, but that is because they are not aware of the parameters by which they decide what is "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong" - in other words, they don't consider why they want to fix a "problem". Logically, if one wants to logically deduce a solution to a problem, one must set parameters first; any problem arises from expectation of how the world should be, after all. The Earth becoming uninhabitable only becomes a problem because we want it to be habitable, for example.

I'm rambling a little (a lottle), but the point is that most problems only arise as a result of our unwillingness to accept the obvious solutions (because of the unspoken, "obvious" things that we don't even think about before considering it, like why just killing everyone who objects to the situation about it isn't an option). So we are, in truth, persuading people around to our own parameters for deciding what is and isn't a problem.

Well, I doubt everyone kills for the same reasons.

 

yes, Santa clause and the bogy man are instances of this.....but that wasn't the question.....and dont ask me what the question was because i dont remember...

i just know it is not foolish to accept consequence even when the reason for consequential action cannot be equated....

or at least thats what i understood from "you would be foolish not to do what god says because he can kick your ass".....fear is not reason to agree.....in this context, it is using a problem to suppress another problem

well, good and bad are used to describe satisfaction or contempt for an action or thing....i think the term reasonable moves to express causality because it means rational, and rational is having the ability to reason. and reason is the basis or motive for an action, or a premises......

so, rationality would be how an entity arrives at an optimal or realistic decision based on existing data.

ok let me get this straight.....

.....problems come from expectations.....expectations come from principles.....principles come from data, and data comes from experience/assumptions

im going to need some kind of cause/effect break down.....

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. I think one should accept fact and only extrapolate meaning and consequence from that fact. We can't always know what causes the effects we experience - but we tend to try to make sense of the universe even when we know we lack the knowledge to do so at all well. Santa and the bogeyman are just the tip of the iceberg. There's been a huge number of scientific "facts" that were actually nothing of the sort, but were simply based on our limited capacity to perceive. There've been plenty of theories about the shape of the world, the nature of matter and energy, etc. that were based on "all available data" at the time. And then there are the odd anecdotal examples, like the fact that Aristotle stated that flies have four legs and was held in such high esteem that no-one bothered to actually check for several centuries.

In that context, it's not so much fear as self-preservation. Not all fear is irrational. If you knew, for definite, that is WAS God, and that you WOULD be punished (possibly for all eternity) for disobeying him at some stage, it'd be pretty reasonable to be afraid to disobey.

I mean, you're aware of the story of Abraham and Isaac, right? It's one of the few parts of the Bible that is 100% clear in its message.

I don't think reasonable and rational are totally synonymous. They can be used in the same sentence. But plenty of reasonable things aren't strictly rational. Reason being distinct from logic, of course.

See above. Available data isn't always right. Sometimes the unavailable data is not only absent; sometimes the absence of that data prevents us from interpreting the available data correctly, because we cannot see it in context. Some men deduce the existence of unknown forces from inconsistencies between theories that seem sound and the disparities within them; others dismiss or try to adapt the theory because of the inconsistency, and end up further from the truth than they already were.

 

yes, ignorance is one of three options.....sort of the middle ground as i see it

rational action, ignorant action, irrational action

reason accommodate any of these three

acting on available data is fine, but if someone has reason to disagree with you, it would not be an irrational idea to possibly stop, look, and listen....

discrepancy is the gateway to higher conciousness

yes, fear is a reasonable reaction, but how can the punishment someone one would be afraid of be justified?

if god himself finds intrinsic ethical value in his own actions simply because he is god, fear is exactly what we should do

well context spam is kind of hard to avoid in these conversations, i agree they are not synonyms but they are extremely closely related

you could say they are identical twins

one slightly more perfect than the other, but both still fallible

with regards to available data ofc

 

Sorry to interrupt but let's say someone murdered your whole family would not punishment be justified and should not the murderer be fearful of such punishment? Or do you believe that punishment is never justified?

 

real causes of fear of anything are fabrications or instinctual reactions....some kids are afraid of the dark....some people freeze up in front of speeding cars....ect

i do believe a man like that should be put away....i have reason to call it justice, and he has reason to disagree with me....but my assertions would be supported by substantial evidence

 

when i wrote "yes, fear is a reasonable reaction, but how can the punishment someone one would be afraid of be justified?"

i was addressing how fear and its reasons are all fabrications.....

emotion towards an event does not alter it, that is not to say that their are no emotions in events or that it does not alter your point of view, ....but the way you feel about something is an event itself....

 

The more I debate, the more I am subjectively assured my position is correct. That's my personal reason. My other reason is that religion, especially those based on faith, can make people believe very dangerous things and act in very dangerous ways even through benign doctrines. You might say, oh, there is moderate religion; but that's by arbitration of the person whether they are to be moderate or not. Essentially, religion's faith/irrational base allows it to be manipulated and manipulate thousands of people to atrocities. Whether there are moderates are not, religion threatens everything, even moderation itself because faith/irrationality allows it to be arbitrary.

Of course, the larger culture has put social pressure and social restraints on religion and have kept it so, luckily. However, the scary thing is, though it's a minority, the "extremist" string of religious people have much more force through the force they use to further their cause.

So, anyway, long story short, those are my reasons.