Why do Atheists spend so much time debatng the existence of God?

[Brakeman]

First of all, I don't recall there being too many of us here who claim we can disprove god. Second, it isn't our job to; the burden of proof is on the people making the existential claim, and that's you. Ask yourself: why haven't you guys been able to provide evidence yet?

The burden is on the person making the claim. If I asked, "what do believe is the ultimate cause of the universe? a)Supernatural b) Natural c) Don't know. What would you answer? If you answer a or b, you have the burden. The only person who doesn't have he burden is c), an agnostic.

No, that question is asking an opinion, it wanted to know where one has found a preponderance of evidence. None of the answers had a burden of proof. A proposition is a positive declaration of certainty.

If I say it is possible that Esquilax is my friend, I don't have much burden of proof because I am also implying that it is possible that we are not friends. It is so weak of a statement that no proof would be required anyway.

If I say Esquilax is a magical wizard that cured my amputeeism, then a whole shitload of proof is needed.
But if you say you believe Esquilax is a magical wizard, again no proof is required because it is only your unseasoned opinion.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

This is what is frustrating when debating with atheists, their is a shifting between atheism and agnosticism when an argument is presented. Imo, their is plenty of evidence for God's existence, typically the big 5, 1. KCA, design, moral argument, Jesus Christ and personal experience. What you find as satisfying is completely arbitrary.

We are agnostic atheists. We don't claim to know. However, some god claims (typically the biblical god is one example) we can reject because it is self-defeating.

"In your opinion". Don't you realise that your 'opinion' is completely irrelevant to us? We don't care about 'your opinion', we care about evidence to back up your claims. If you are unable to provide it, then your claims are self-defeating. Really, they demolish themselves because they have literally no substance whatsoever. Saying that what we find satisfying is arbitrary is completely missing the mark, and also a contradiction of your own view. And if you can't see this, then you've just been Punk'd.

As for you being frustrated when debating us:

[max-greece]

"As a Christian, God has spoken, very clearly. Unfortunately, man is evil and man has perverted God's word for their own benefit, selfish and evil desires. Unfortunately, this is a side consequence of free will."

It never ceases to amaze me how Christians never notice how horrific the bold part of the above is.

The only way that religion holds together is the idea that anything good comes from God and anything else he is given a free pass on whilst Humanity is evil.

It is definitional in Christianity - probably the worst curse ever issued upon mankind because of it.

Your beliefs fill me with revulsion.

[Tonus]

It makes you wonder how effective the doctrine is. Is it really having an effect on anyone's life if just as much good or evil is possible with and without it? Why isn't the word of the supreme creator and ultimate power in the universe able to effect change on a scale that would differentiate it from any other philosophy? I would expect to see a world where there was such a clear dividing line between those who profess faith and those who reject it, that there would be no doubt as to the validity of following a particular god and his/her teachings. Instead we get a world where people point to a Josef Stalin defensively, as if to say "well he was a bit worse." That might be the most depressing gap I've ever seen god squeezed into.

Not really, that is like me looking at obese people and thinking obesity is not a threat to a humans survival because their are obese people. The bottom line is, God gave us free will. As a Christian, God has spoken, very clearly. Unfortunately, man is evil and man has perverted God's word for their own benefit, selfish and evil desires. Unfortunately, this is a side consequence of free will.

I think you misunderstood my point. On one side, you have people who follow what is claimed to be the word of god. On the other side, you have people who reject god and his teachings. One would assume that the differences in behavior and results would be so great that the benefit to be gained from following god would be obvious. Yet the best you offer when the crimes of religion are noted is "atheists did really bad things, too." If they can't be differentiated, then where is the benefit from religious belief?

[Searching4truth]

[*Deidre*]

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

Well, wouldn't it be rude to ignore all the theists who beg atheists to debate them?


If theism didn't exist, atheism wouldn't exist. Cause and effect people; come on!
:p

[ThomM]

WE don't spend ANY time at all DEBATING the subject

Gods are imaginary and DON"T exist - there is NO debate for an atheist

It is theists - of the many different religions and gods that debate among themselves.

[Walking Void]

Tip for theists: Stop mentioning god, and I will stop addressing it.

[KichigaiNeko]

Why do doctors talk incessantly about cancer?

[Esquilax]

Why do doctors talk incessantly about cancer?

Because they secretly believe in it.