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

[Tortino]

Some atheists believe in reincarnation or ghosts, for instance. Although they'd get a drubbing around here.

A form of atheism that believes in an afterlife?

You're thinking of existentialism, I think. A lot of atheists are existentialists, but atheism isn't a synonym for existentialism. An atheist can have any philosophy consistent with not believing in any gods...and I'm not sure about that, because consistency isn't required to be an atheist (or theist), either. Note Christian admirers of Ayn Rand's phiolosophy.

I agree with that.

There's nothing about ethical subjectivism that precludes one from concluding that some way people spend their time is wrong (as you are doing here). It is a form of moral relativism, and one thing can be good or bad in relation to another. Unlike moral skepticism, in ethical subjectivism a moral statement can be true or false, in relation to the subject. To a cat, catching and eating mice is fine; while to a mouse it's horrible. Both statements are true (hypothetically speaking) from the point of view of the cat and mouse.

This is just not about morality, but rather meaning / purpose.

It depends on the person, I suppose. In my case, because I think it matters if what you believe is true. And, I enjoy the mental exercise. However, note that you won't find me on theist forums challenging the theists, or going door-to-door to tell people the neutral news.

Fair enough.

You do this so much you've developed a list of common objections?

It my job.

I dunno. I think they should get the same tax breaks as any other 501©3 organization as long as they follow the same rules. Are you saying this is something it's irrational to spend discussion time on?

Nope.

They do. They don't have a right to a government-provided podium, microphone, and venue though...and they have a record of frequently trying to get those things.

Why not?

Everyone has a right to voice their opinion. That includes the right to criticize what other people say. It's people who wish to suppress critcism who are actually against free speech, because they've mistaken a right to speak without anyone using force to stop them with a right to say whatever they want without anyone else publically disagreeing with them.

Agreed.

Theism doesn't keep you from becoming a fine scientist. Christianists altering public school science textbooks to suit their religious preferences could well have that effect.

Intelligent design looks at the same evidence as everyone else, but comes up with alternative conclusions which are very rational.

Welcome, btw.

Thanks.

Intelligent Design isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis. One that has failed every test proposed to support it. Without empirical support, it doesn't amount to more than an argument from incredulity (I personally don't see how that could have happened unless it was designed by someone, therefore it was designed by someone).

How has it failed? How can you test for God?

One of the more amusing results of the Dover trial was the revelation that the intelligent design textbook being used was just a creationist textbook with references to creation changed to 'intelligent design'. Believe me, the Discovery Institute started with a religious text. The intent of intelligent design as it is promoted by the DI is to soften students up for creationism. See the 'wedge document'.

Again, ID looks at the same evidence that is presented to non believers, but looks at conclusions that allows the possibility of a designer.

Why would you conclude from a comment about being more polite to religious visitors than to sales people that he considers solicitation a big problem in his life?

Just a question to gauge how much of an issue someone knocking on another persons door once every 5 years really is a problem?

It's only evidence of your contention if internet forums that cater to a demographic are representative of the entire demographic. If you really want to know if this sort of thing is typical of atheists, start by determining the number of different atheists on forums discussing the existence of God. You should probably stick to one country, the USA for instance, because working the numbers wil be easier that way. Then divide by the total atheist population of the country (in the USA that's about 8 million self-identified atheists).

Fair enough.

It's a scientific one. People who promote intelligent design only have to propose one biological feature that can't be accounted for by the modern synthesis of biological evolution to get traction. Until they can do that, they're spinning their wheels. And the reason they hold on to intelligenct design despite being unable to find a single biological feature that can be explained only by their hypothesis, is because they have an agenda that isn't following the evidence wherever it leads.

A parameter to determine if something is designed is if has any purpose and its complexity.

On Ivy post, I am trying to start a secular group here. Since Secular students alliance is the only on in the Louisiana northern region. Bible belt sucks at times.

When I started my group, Meetup was free. It isn't anymore, but it's still a good tool for forming a group if you can afford it. I think it's like $30-40 a month now for three sites. I only have to pay $9 a month because I get a grandfathered price.

OTH, starting a FB page is free.

[Captain Colostomy]

This is my job.

[Tortino]

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.

Third, we also don't believe that god doesn't exist. Most of us willingly claim we don't know, but that the time to believe in something is when it has evidence sufficient to justify this. There isn't much in the way of evidence regarding your god.

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.

The issue is that lies and fantasies don't add anything meaningful to one's life, and it's terribly condescending of you to say that we should be preserving those fantasies because it's comfortable.

You see, now you have reverted back to Atheism. You just claimed "Most of us willingly claim we don't know", yet you refer back to this as being a fantasy. How can you say something is a fantasy when just before you say you don't know? This shifting between atheism and agnosticism is frustrating. Again, if it is what gives meaning to someone, then who are you or anyone to say otherwise?

Fact is, Ivy explained it to you in the post you quoted; these fantastical stories with no basis in reality prompt those who believe them to bigotry and hatred and close mindedness. That's plenty of reason right there.

How can you say "Most of us willingly claim we don't know" but in the same line say it is a fantasy? One is a truth claim, the other is not. You have contradicted yourself.

Are you honestly that sheltered that you think door knockers are the only problems religions cause? Tell that to the gay folks having to fight for their marriage rights, just off the top of my head. I promise you, we can all find more examples.

So gay rights is something that really gets on your nerves? How much time do you spend on war/anti war websites arguing against US troops in Iraq killing and blowing up innocent little children? and BTW, I have many Atheist friends who are against gay marriage.

Ever consider that we enjoy the debates we get into? That we might like devoting thought to things like this? That maybe we like each other and enjoy hearing what everyone else has to say?

Really? I find it irrational debating about a being that you don't believe exists...Surely, there are better things to do in life...? No?

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.

This is my job.

Really? Do you get paid for it?

[Kayenneh]

Tortino, you should try out some quote managing, thanks.

EDIT: If it's unclear how the quoting system works, here's a short guide:

Code:

[quote=Member A]Text and whatnot.[/quote]

Quote tags are meant to be used when you cite another member, whose post you want to address. You do not need to quote yourself and you don't need to quote a whole post, if you're not addressing the whole post. And keep the bolding to a minimum, it's a tool to be used to emphasise, to use it over and over again makes you come across like a screaming madman. But please, do keep the member's name that you're quoting in the tags, since otherwise it is hard to follow who you're talking to. If you have several quotes by the same member, you only need to have the name in the first quote tag. Happy posting!

[Bad Wolf]

How has it failed? How can you test for God?

No, and thats exactly one of the reasons why it fails

---

This is what is frustrating when debating with atheists, their is a shifting between atheism and agnosticism when an argument is presented.

You have probably been told this before but in my experience you need to repeat things over and over again to theists that visit this forum. atheism and agnosticism or not mutually exclusive, the majority of atheists are agnostic atheists. But for me it really depends on the god claim.

[Esquilax]

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.

My answer is c, because I'm an agnostic atheist; see, atheism concerns what you claim to believe, and agnosticism (root word: gnossis, meaning knowledge) concerns what you claim to know. I don't believe in any gods, but I don't claim to know there aren't any gods. Hence, agnostic atheist.

This is what is frustrating when debating with atheists, their is a shifting between atheism and agnosticism when an argument is presented.

It's just that you don't really understand what those terms mean. It's cool, now you do.

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.

The problem is that none of those things are really evidence at all. In order: even if you allow every premise of Kalam, it only gets you to a deistic creator, not the christian god, and the entire argument just demands that god didn't "begin to exist," without providing justification for that.

The argument from design only works by drastically misunderstanding how human beings recognize design.

The moral argument can be rebutted simply by denying the existence of objective morals, which I do.

There's no evidence for Jesus, and personal experience can't possibly count as evidence for someone else. I don't want to derail the thread so much, but if you're interested in actually discussing these arguments- and I hope you are- why not create a new thread for them so I can correct your misconceptions?

You see, now you have reverted back to Atheism. You just claimed "Most of us willingly claim we don't know", yet you refer back to this as being a fantasy. How can you say something is a fantasy when just before you say you don't know?

If nobody can provide actual evidence for the thing they believe, then what is there to differentiate it from a fantasy?

This shifting between atheism and agnosticism is frustrating. Again, if it is what gives meaning to someone, then who are you or anyone to say otherwise?

Wouldn't you find it sad if someone you loved took their entire life's meaning from a lie?

So gay rights is something that really gets on your nerves? How much time do you spend on war/anti war websites arguing against US troops in Iraq killing and blowing up innocent little children?

Want to throw out any more red herrings? I just said it was an example off the top of my head. If I listed everything I had an issue with, we'd be here forever. By the way, how many christians justified that war with their religion?

and BTW, I have many Atheist friends who are against gay marriage.

So what?

Really? I find it irrational debating about a being that you don't believe exists...Surely, there are better things to do in life...? No?

What do you have against intellectual, hypothetical discussion?

[Captain Colostomy]

This is my job.

Really? Do you get paid for it?

Yes, in popcorn. Does Jesus pay you to be his mouthpiece?

[Brian37]

How has it failed? How can you test for God?

No, and thats exactly one of the reasons why it fails

---

This is what is frustrating when debating with atheists, their is a shifting between atheism and agnosticism when an argument is presented.

You have probably been told this before but in my experience you need to repeat things over and over again to theists that visit this forum. atheism and agnosticism or not mutually exclusive, the majority of atheists are agnostic atheists. But for me it really depends on the god claim.

The theist gets around the pragmatic tool of quality control in the form of testing because they have already swallowed the Kool Aid. "Poofdaddy" logic works because they want it to work, not because it actually does.

[Darwinian]

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.

My answer would be 'b' and I still wouldn't have the burden of proof. The reason I wouldn't have the burden of proof is because I don't have a belief in the supernatural and if the reason I picked 'b' is because of a lack of belief in 'a' then I cannot have the burden of proof for not believing in something. And as for 'c', this is easily rejected as an option because is goes without saying that nobody actually knows.

[Kayenneh]

Well, as a Christian, I can compare humans to an objective moral standard

No, you can't, since there's no such thing. What you're basically saying is: "Since I'm a Christian, I'm a pompous and self righteous douche."

Well, when the universe began to exist, space, time and matter began to exist. That means, prior to the universe, space, time and matter didn't exist.

That you can't know. Or are you up for the physics Nobel Prize 2014?

Well, we all have free will. Some people use religion for good, and unfortunately a lot use it for evil. That is why I shy away from the actions of people to determine if something is right or wrong. Rather, look at the doctrine.

Free will is a cop-out and the doctrine is a piece of shit. Yeah, I'm not impressed.

Crime exists, cancer exists, God exists?

No, religion does.

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY

This is what is frustrating when debating with atheists, their is a shifting between atheism and agnosticism when an argument is presented.

Don't project the inadequacy of your understanding onto others. Atheism is a stance on the belief of gods, gnosticism and agnosticism is about knowledge and certainty.

Imo, their is plenty of evidence for God's existence, typically the big 5, 1. KCA, design, moral argument, Jesus Christ and personal experience.

And I'm guessing you have scientific research and plenty of papers supporting your opinion. Personal experience, don't make me laugh!

What you find as satisfying is completely arbitrary.

It has nothing to do with what we find satisfying, the scientific method is followed by both atheists and theists in the field.

Again, if it is what gives meaning to someone, then who are you or anyone to say otherwise?

When done on a global scale, it's everyone's problem.

Really? I find it irrational debating about a being that you don't believe exists...Surely, there are better things to do in life...? No?

It's no different than any other book club, really.

As a Christian

Here you go again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSP3X4HKRb8

God has spoken, very clearly.

If you hear voices in your head, get professional help.