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

The same reason Jews argued against Hitler.

The same reason Blacks argued against Jim Crow.

Religious rigidity is a disgrace and retards human progress.

Fight it at all costs.

Sink or swim.

Or just laugh...

 

cant really dis the atheists too much, alot of them know more about the subject than the hand me down "Christians" or i guess i should say theists in general.

 

Why weren’t the atheists doing so?

Why weren’t the atheists doing so?

Retards human progress? Aside from; “there is no God” or “God is dead” what has atheism added to mankind? Whereas every step forward in human relationships mankind has made has come through religious thought. Do to others as you would have them do to you; please show me the atheistic equivalent.

 

Well I wonder how many clerics would be willing to come down out of there palaces, Basilicas and pulpits and take courses in post modernism and the such.

 

not enough to save this world.

 

Having taken modules in post modernism at university, I can honestly say that if that's what's going to save the world I'd rather watch it burn.

I'd say it's a pretty fair balance. In this thread certainly, there's at least as many religious people with a far greater knowledge of non-theological philosophy and Socratic reasoning than the atheists.

Doesn't it rather trivialise the death, torture and enslavement of millions of people to draw this parallel to some aspie basement dweller ranting at fundies about how what they believe is "for fool's" while lacking the knowledge of religion to really engage with the issues or even know what they are?

 

yeah, but it might give them a sense of realism, besides, its never going to happen, so rejoice, you will not be burnt today.

 

Actually, now I think, I seem to remember one of the popes saying something about relativism. He wasn't a fan.

Thing is, post-modernism should be a neat compromise for the Church between theocracy and modernism, but it isn't. They don't want to be merely tolerated.

 

I can't speak for atheists, since I'm not one. But the main reason I argue or discuss issues with atheists is to get feedback and increase my understanding. I could be posting on the Christian forum, but haven't done so for some time, because I'm not sure what I'd be gaining discussing things with people who tend to agree with me. Maybe it's the same with atheists?

 

I've actually always wondered - in Western countries, for example, how do these true religious people see god? What is it for them? Is he really a person or rather a metaphor? Or a an actual supreme force but just without a physical form? It's hard to discuss when we're not even sure what that god is.

 

Whats God? What about a secular institution like the state. Its like God in that its pretty hard to define, but it is also pretty omnipotent in many regards relative to the average individual. Indeed it seems to perform many of the same cultural and material function of the late church, throughout the life of the individual. Hopefully bureaucracy cannot extend into the after life thow.

 

wow just about every single one of these threads drift off into a debate about the existence of god, and not the theme of the thread.

 

It depends on what "true religious people" you're talking about. I come from a part of the country where it's not uncommon for people to believe in a personal God who answers prayer and micromanages our lives. They believe God is the Dude in the Sky, and that He has a plan for each of us. I've been told (by a Ph.D.!) not to be concerned that I'm not married yet, because it will happen when God intends it and with the person He intends for me. I hear stuff like that quite a lot. If God fixes me up with a hot chick, I certainly won't complain, but I've never thought of God as a Cosmic Matchmaker. Many people around here are also in communication with God. The comedian Lily Tomlin once said "If you talk to God, its prayer; if God talks to you, its schizophrenia." But many people I know get messages from God. (Maybe I tend to hang with schizophrenics). I gather these messages come in the form of good vibrations, and I've been told that the specific person of God that sends them is the Holy Spirit. It's hard for me to get perspective, but I think these beliefs are more common in the so-called Bible Belt (southern United States) and maybe some of the rural states of the Midwest, like Kansas.

I'm personally more skeptical. My idea of God tends to be more metaphorical (Dewey's summation of human idealism), but like many, I use the term for a Higher Power or Something Big Out There that may be related to the fine tuning of the universe, human conscious, and all the other cool stuff science can't yet explain (Yes, I know: the God of Gaps). Like William James, I think the God hypothesis "works" from a pragmatic standpoint, in giving postitive meaning and purpose to existence, consistent with available evidence. I consider myself Christian because I think Jesus was a good hippie who preached "peace, love and understanding" and hung out with low lifes like me. A lot of the rest I take with a grain of salt, but try to keep an open mind.

 

Yeah, that happens.

To answer the original question: because we're idiots.

 

so ive noticed, ive seen chemistry thread drift off into fundamental debates of religion in here.

 

The original topic didn't have legs. The question was addressed to atheists and I don't think many, if any, tried to answer it. Maybe it's time to start a different thread?

 

quite possibly okie, although i am not the one that advocates this change, therefore, idrc, so, idk what to say....genocide to the drifters?

 

We all know and can understand what a state is. It's founded and run by people. It's a human creation so it's visible for us to see and understand what a state can do, what its structure is and what boundaries it has. Like you said it's an institution.

But god is not. God is a supernatural force which is somewhere out there. A state is a construction, a god is thought to be an entity - and not created by people (if where not talkind about the myth of a god). Church would be the equal counterpart of the state. Church as the institution.

If in church the driving force is religion then in politics it's probably ideology. Which is also a bunch of beliefs. In worse cases ideology may also be very dogmatic - not based on the judgement of reality and the actual needs of society.

Now I've deviated from the main point a bit... But with this I'm trying to explain why religion cannot be taken as a serious institution. At least when it comes to politics.

 

What I wish is that there was a means of continuing the atheism/theism argument alive (in a respectable, open to debate manner) without people's positions interfering with daily life and the functioning of society and culture(s), but it's near impossible.

 

Well there are many varying and conflicting definitions of that institution put forward by many different people. Theres no real agreement.

Also you cannot discount the invisible cultural glue that holds the state/nation together, that renders its authority legitimate and the such.

As an atheist I regard religions and its Gods as just as much of a human creation as the state. It can probably be analysed in much the same way. Although like the state there are as many conflicting theories on the topic.

The church's can and do play politics all the time. Which is only natural after all. Although as an atheist I would like to keep them out.
Furthermore when you look at things historically the church and the state have always had a close relationship.

In any case I am surprised that I have not been banned for straying way of topic.