New here :)

[Minimalist]

Atheists: if there's no god, why should you feel such a strong need to convince others that there isn't one?

Mainly because YOU came here. You want to come into the lion's den and pretend the lions are not there. Unrealistic.

For myself, I see no evidence whatsoever that any of the gods created by human imagination from the beginning of human cognition have any fact to them. They are manifestations of man's fears and ignorance of how things work. Now, I suspect that we agree on 99.999% of all those assorted gods and demons but you still maintain that, in spite of such a dreary track record, your god is the real deal.

For me you need to support that with actual evidence and not the soapy "I feel god in everything I do" kind of platitudes that xtians (in particular) are so famed for.


{Personal note to Emporion: You see how this works?}

[Welsh cake]

Hi and Welcome! ^^

Nobody has anything worthwhile to say? I appreciate the welcome smiley the most seriously though, these replies are examples of what I hate in religious discussions.

And how else are we supposed to have a formal debate with you?

If you don't want to get into a conversation about religion with us just yet, be polite and kindly tell us.

[Edwardo Piet]

Basically, everyone should be able to have a religious discussion without making personal attacks and/or getting angry at everyone.

I didn't see that happening here.

Atheists: if there's no god, why should you feel such a strong need to convince others that there isn't one?

Why not?

Let them have their naive beliefs, right?

Why?

I'm not saying there shouldn't be any religious debate, that's why I'm here; but it can be done without anybody believing that others' beliefs are loads of insufferable bill crap,

And if we do believe such a thing, how can that be helped?

because we all have gone through the stages of believing in the other "side".

That depends.

Quoting my signature and claiming that that "says it all" is an example of replies I dislike. And bear in mind that when I say dislike, I mean replies that aren't good for the convo.

Why not?

For a good religious discussion to start, everyone has to kick back, grab a coke or whatever, and realize that the goal is to strengthen one's own beliefs, not convince others that they are correct.

Isn't it rather unproductive to just reinforce your own beliefs? That could equate to living in a bubble and never really testing yourself.

Some make it their goal to convince others that their beliefs are the right ones.

And what's wrong with that?

That's the response I predict I will get... May I ask why?

Why not?

I'm honestly wondering, I know it sounds like I'm making a point, but I really just want to hear your side.

Because I'm of the opinion that God is highly improbable, because I believe he very probably doesn't exist, I would love to deconvert any theist whenever I can. I think it would be better to live in a world with less delusional fairy tales (I say fairy tales because I do not consider it to be a strawman at all, I consider it analogous).

So, what was wrong with my Santa Claus analogy?

And, I would still like to know why you say you call yourself the Diplomat because you are more logical. What has logic got to do with diplomacy?

[The Diplomat]

Quote:
Atheists: if there's no god, why should you feel such a strong need to convince others that there isn't one?


Mainly because YOU came here. You want to come into the lion's den and pretend the lions are not there. Unrealistic.

Not exactly. I do expect you to be here; that's why I came. I dont see why religious debaters in general must always be so... Defensive? Angry? It truly isn't necessary. I've had great religious discussions with my friend Christian (he's an atheist) without anger whatsoever.overthe Internet, people are more willing to quickly shut down and deny the heretic without hesitation. In this case, it's not so much that my beliefs are being denied as you guys (sorry for the generalization) are impatient with what you believe is a load of crap.

@welsh cake, thanks I don't expect to feel welcome here, being the one in the "lion's den"

@Minimalist, did you make that Biblical reference on purpose?

[Minimalist]

I'll never tell.

[The Diplomat]

Ok, I can't even keep up with the replies. Sorry I'm on an iPod touch.

Ok. @doubtvsfaith, I haven't had time to reply to those, sorry. The Santa claus thing I (temporarily!) ignored because I have no idea what occam's scalpel is. Enlighten me as for the logical thing, my point was (and remains) that diplomats tend to be able to see both sides (by definition). That requires cool logic, not heated emotion.

I come on here to expose myself to other beliefs, take them to heart (I don't discard atheists' arguments!), and realize that I come out of it as a stronger Christian. Its not all about living in a bubble. (I would quote, but it's hard on an iPod.) The whole "why not" thing is simple - without logic, it becomes a war of emotion - whoever gets the most angry feels the most justified. That's no way to have a religious convo that is moving forward. If you intend to break out of your own bubble, how do you intend to do that without realizing that others' beliefs have A value. Naturally, you won't value them as high as your own; that's fine. But if you don't accept that they have the slimmest bit of possibility to them whatsoever, the convo will benefit both sides drastically more than if either debater decides the opponent's beliefs are useless.

[theVOID]

Ok, you're right, I should explain more about what i believe religious discussions should consist of.

Basically, everyone should be able to have a religious discussion without making personal attacks and/or getting angry at everyone.

Let's try.

Atheists: if there's no god, why should you feel such a strong need to convince others that there isn't one?

1. Because religious belief is normative, it effects ones behaviour and the way they vote, those two things effect everyone.

• Changing education standards and teaching children bullshit (creationism).
  
  
• Tax free status for mega millionaire pastors (I have nothing against small community churches being tax free).
  
  
• Impacts on personal freedoms like a gay persons right to marry and freedom from religion.
  
  
• Negligence, especially medical: For instance your own church's stance on Condoms, telling people that they cause AIDS is completely negligent and costs a great many lives.
  
  
• Lack of accountability: Church organisations tend to get away with actions that no other organisations would, for instance moving paedophiles around the world to avoid prosecution. Imagine if Merill Lynch moved paedophile executives to different branches because they didn't want to be prosecuted and face the bad publicity...

2. Because we are about true beliefs and would like others to have them too.

3. Because some of us enjoy debates.

Etc.

Let them have their naive beliefs, right? Theists: it's not your job to convert anybody, and nobody is making personal attacks (usually). No need to get angry.

Not their job... Depends who you ask, many people think that is exactly their job, to win converts for Christ.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be any religious debate, that's why I'm here; but it can be done without anybody believing that others' beliefs are loads of insufferable bill crap, because we all have gone through the stages of believing in the other "side".

Depends if their beliefs are insufferable crap or not.

Quoting my signature and claiming that that "says it all" is an example of replies I dislike. And bear in mind that when I say dislike, I mean replies that aren't good for the convo. For a good religious discussion to start, everyone has to kick back, grab a coke or whatever, and realize that the goal is to strengthen one's own beliefs, not convince others that they are correct.

That is a fundamental problem you have there... "Strengthening one's own beliefs"...

That is NOT the goal, the goal is to get towards the truth, after all that is what we value here. If you are only here to parade your own views then there is an [x] button in the top right (left for mac) corner, you might want to use it - On the other hand if you are here because you value logic and reason and believe you have good reasons for your beliefs then please share them and you'll get along just fine.

Some make it their goal to convince others that their beliefs are the right ones. That's the response I predict I will get... May I ask why? I'm honestly wondering, I know it sounds like I'm making a point, but I really just want to hear your side.

Well yeah, I think my beliefs are the right ones, if I thought they were wrong I necessarily wouldn't believe them...

It's not my goal to convince you I'm right, it's my goal to argue my position until someone proves it is wrong or finds error in my logic, at that point I seek a new position - Are you open to do the same?

Sorry I didn't see your post there

I believe in God because of a lot of things, the one that atheists would care about the most being that I believe it's the most logical explanation for the universe.

Care to present this logic?

[Edwardo Piet]

[...]I have no idea what occam's scalpel[razor] is.[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[...]my point was (and remains) that diplomats tend to be able to see both sides (by definition). That requires cool logic, not heated emotion.

That makes them more logical in the sense of rational. That doesn't mean your reasoning is any more logical. It's possible to see both sides almost blindly or only one side very clearly.

I come on here to expose myself to other beliefs, take them to heart (I don't discard atheists' arguments!), and realize that I come out of it as a stronger Christian. Its not all about living in a bubble.

Sure, that's a fine thing as a side-effect, coming out stronger. As an aim it isn't so good

The whole "why not" thing is simple - without logic, it becomes a war of emotion - whoever gets the most angry feels the most justified.

One can get angry and still have valid points.

That's no way to have a religious convo that is moving forward.

It depends if the emotions turn to hysteria.

If you intend to break out of your own bubble, how do you intend to do that without realizing that others' beliefs have A value.

Their beliefs might do more harm than good.

Naturally, you won't value them as high as your own; that's fine. But if you don't accept that they have the slimmest bit of possibility to them whatsoever, the convo will benefit both sides drastically more than if either debater decides the opponent's beliefs are useless.

Maybe their beliefs are useless? Maybe their beliefs are harmful?

Sure the opposing view is a possibility. We live in the same world here and when there are contradictory views some view has to be right.