Pointless Debate

[Smart_Guy]

I think most if not all debates are pointless.

I prefer to friendly discuss instead of debate and shake hands in the end with good spirit. In debates one tends to stick to their understanding while in discussions and leaving, one might think of the points of discussion instead of staying all over their debate points should it was a debate.

I also like chicken more than red meet. Chicken in more delicious than red meet. That's a non-debatable fact, so don't try to convince me!

 

[Typist]

Why would an atheist talk about nothing?

Because the overwhelming vast majority of reality appears to be nothing, and atheists are typically interested in the observation of reality as one of their primary methodologies?

I would agree that atheists who spend all day every day talking about God are an interesting phenomena. In my experience of exploring the forumosphere, it seems theists usually have far less interest in discussing atheism, as best I can tell.

But the worst group of all has to be those crazy Fundamentalist Agnostics, who are always trying to sell silence in as many LOUD words as possible. I'm pretty sure those people have a screw loose, probably more than one, probably like entire handfuls of screws that have fallen clear out of their brainola machines.

 

[Typist]

Imagine that your president introduced a suite of repressive laws on the basis that an invisible wizard had instructed him to do so.

Um, no offense, but forum atheists really don't care about any of that, or they'd be talking about atheist fascists too, which they pretty much never do, preferring instead to rationalize atheist fascist crimes out the wazoo, while pretending they're not, and all of that too clever by half rhetorical razmatazz ad naseum yada, yada, yada, etc etc. C'mon, you know the drill. And if you don't, no worries, somebody will probably type it again right here real soon.

 

[Bunyip]

Um, no offense, but forum atheists really don't care about any of that,

This one does. So do many of the other lovely people here.

or they'd be talking about atheist fascists too, which they pretty much never do, preferring instead to rationalize atheist fascist crimes out the wazoo

What atheist fascist crime? Atheism is not an ideology, there is no such thing.

, while pretending they're not, and all of that too clever by half rhetorical razmatazz ad naseum yada, yada, yada, etc etc. C'mon, you know the drill. And if you don't, no worries, somebody will probably type it again right here real soon.

It's a lovely autumn evening here. How are you today?

 

[Typist]

What atheist fascist crime? Atheism is not an ideology, there is no such thing.

As predicted!

 

[Bunyip]

As predicted!

Of course, nobody does anything in the name of a disbelief. What atheist fascism? At least give an example before giving up.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As predicted!

Can you give an example?

 

[Marisa]

Isnt it illogical for an athiest (one who knows God does not exist defin. for this thread) to debate God's existence?

Is it illogical for the 97% of scientists who totally "get" that global warming is a thing and man contributes to it to debate those who don't believe it? Yes, especially if any of those people either occupy positions of legislative power, or vote.

i.e. If I had an invisible box (whats in the box!! Sorry, Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt movie flash back) and millions of people just believed it exist and I know it does not....why would I say "it 'could' exist" literally just because believers made a claim? With God, why would I want evidence for someone that does not exist? What is behind building debates around nothing?

This confuses me. But the movie you're referencing is Seven. If you have an invisible box, why would you only say it "could" exist, while believing it doesn't exist? You started out saying you have an invisible box . . . .

"With God, why would I want evidence for someone that does not exist? " Because this is not what all atheists say. Sure, some are strong atheists, but I'd imagine the majority are not. But even as a weak atheist, I want evidence that this deity exists before I believe. But here's the thing you may be missing: believers are insisting we must believe, or construct our lives as if we do. Is it reasonable for us to say we want evidence before we reorganize our lives to flatter some deity? I think so. Here in the US, some lawmakers are proposing legislation mandating weekly church attendance. Why would I go to church if I don't believe that there is enough evidence to substantiate the existence of a deity? There are judges ruling that atheist parents must attend church with their children in order to gain custody. Why should I be forced to allow my children to be taught something I don't believe? Is belief mandatory? Some in society seem to think it is. In other parts of the world, they will kill you for not believing what they want you to believe.

Maybe it could be because in some atheist definitions, there is only a disbelief in God which, that, doesnt require that God be non-existent. It leaves room for debate because they are hanging on possibilities, theory, philosophy.

Are you implying that some atheists leave open the possibility that some god exists? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, so I'll speak from my perspective. If I was shown convincing evidence that any god exists, it does me no harm to admit that. Just like if I didn't believe cats exist and you plunked one into my lap, I'd be hard pressed to continue to not accept the existence of cats. But that doesn't mean I'd automatically worship it, just because it's a god and it exists. My standards for voluntarily enslaving myself to any other being are going to be really high, and I'm not sure any of the gods man has created to date could match them.

If God does not exist and the athiest knows this (hence why he's an athiest) why debate "nothing"?

Again, because (many) believers are insisting everyone must believe or structure their lives as if they do.

 

[Marisa]

Not all atheist have that wiggle room. If something does not exist why make room for it as if it may someday? My OP says that an atheist Knows God does not exist. A thiest Knows God does exist. Direct opposites.

My question, why talk about nothing?

But you're making a presumption about what atheists and theists know. Not all theists believe they know for a fact that god exists, and many will tell you that. Not all atheists believe they know for a fact that god does not exists, and they will tell you that. There's a whole range of conviction in belief/disbelief, and your inability to understand the value of conversation likely stems from your rejection of that fact.

Richard Dawkins,among the most prolific atheist authors today, places himself at 6 on the scale.

 

[Marisa]

Wow..Im just talking about God not theism and not atheism. Im asking about why a hardncore atheist who knows God does not exist woud, in a RF for example, talk about God as if He does?

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

― Aristotle, Metaphysics

 

[Typist]

Can you give an example?

If you want to see it, you can do so without my help.

If you don't want to see it, there's nothing I can do to change that.

OR:

In an effort to be a reasonable, cooperative, constructive, socially approved member of this community (talk about fantasy, wow!) I offer my honorable fellow members the following compromise.

I will agree to believe that atheism in not an ideology if you you will agree to any one (just one!) of the following:

1) The Earth was created 6,000 years ago.

2) The virgin birth of Jesus is a true story.

3) Adam and Eve gave birth to Cain and Able, who then somehow managed to give rise to the rest of humanity, without getting naughty with mom.

4) My real name is His Flatulence Sri Baba Bozo, and I am the founder of Bozoism, the next great world religion. My posts on this forum will make up the soon to be revered Book Of Bozo, which will guide humanity through the next 7,000 years.

To be fair and balanced, if you are willing to agree with any of the above, then I will agree atheism is not an ideology.

He he....

PS: I AM DIABLO!!!!

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Isnt it illogical for an athiest (one who knows God does not exist defin. for this thread) to debate God's existence?

...

If God does not exist and the athiest knows this (hence why he's an athiest) why debate "nothing"?

Because most atheists hold that belief in that which can not be proven is ultimately harmful and inherently dangerous to society and individuals; thus, many of us in our debating are actually trying to make the world a better place.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you want to see it, you can do so without my help.

Not really, since I'm not really sure what qualifies as "atheist fascists" as you put it. I am aware of dictators who were atheists, but I'm not sure that qualifies them as "atheist fascists". Stalin and Mao spring to mind.

In an effort to be a reasonable, cooperative, constructive, socially approved member of this community (talk about fantasy, wow!) I offer my honorable fellow members the following compromise.

I will agree to believe that atheism in not an ideology if you you will agree to any one (just one!) of the following:

1) The Earth was created 6,000 years ago.

2) The virgin birth of Jesus is a true story.

3) Adam and Eve gave birth to Cain and Able, who then somehow managed to give rise to the rest of humanity, without getting naughty with mom.

4) My real name is His Flatulence Sri Baba Bozo, and I am the founder of Bozoism, the next great world religion. My posts on this forum will make up the soon to be revered Book Of Bozo, which will guide humanity through the next 7,000 years.

To be fair and balanced, if you are willing to agree with any of the above, then I will agree atheism is not an ideology.

He he....

PS: I AM DIABLO!!!!

I will agree to terms 1 - 3 in exchange for seven virgins. Claim 4, however, will come at a much higher price, and I will only agree to it upon receipt of thirty-six cheese wheels.

 

[Thief]

Um...
Because unlike the theist, the atheist acknowledges he may be wrong?

Have you actually done this?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I would say that, even though they may not advocate or admit such a position, some atheists feel that they are attempting to "save" some amount of humanity by defending their position against those positions held by theists. If you feel that you are correct in some way that you feel benefits you, then you are likely to attempt to explain, debate or even argue your way to someone who has conflicting views to try and do what you see as "helping" them. Theists do this same thing. What difference does it make whose belief system it is that is being touted or proselytized?

Besides, as it has been pointed out in this thread in multiple ways, by multiple people already, each position helps hone the other's stance and arguments. If anything I would say that the positions of atheism in people, and, consequently, theists feeling they have to defend their beliefs, has possibly given many on both sides an opportunity to better the craft of delivering the tenets of their belief in ways that appeal more broadly, or take out bits of fluff that are proven to "never work" when arguing/debating.

 

[Thief]

Funny. I assume there have been plenty of 'theists' over the years who are not actual believers. Cultural Christians, for want of a better description.

Try.... hypocrite.
Might seem harsh, but....
Many say Lord!.....Lord!....and He knows them not.

 

[Thief]

Let's see...on the one side....
People who claim they believe in God and have a relationship....for spiritual comfort....
People who claim there is no God.....

but I see both sides seeking personal comfort.

If you are right with God....fine...no problem....
If there is no God....no One to answer to for your short comings of spirit.

not that we can't get along.
sure we can.

 

[Thief]

What if....God believing in you...is important?

just asking..

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Isnt it illogical for an athiest (one who knows God does not exist defin. for this thread) to debate God's existence?

i.e. If I had an invisible box (whats in the box!! Sorry, Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt movie flash back) and millions of people just believed it exist and I know it does not....why would I say "it 'could' exist" literally just because believers made a claim? With God, why would I want evidence for someone that does not exist? What is behind building debates around nothing?

Maybe it could be because in some atheist definitions, there is only a disbelief in God which, that, doesnt require that God be non-existent. It leaves room for debate because they are hanging on possibilities, theory, philosophy.

If God does not exist and the athiest knows this (hence why he's an athiest) why debate "nothing"?

Because the object of the debate would be to get the ones who do believe in the box to stop believing in the box. Because if there really isn't a box we could stop all this massive waste of resources having to do with the box.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I know everyone is different in why they talk about an invisible God. I dont do so because people are being forced to or I have preasure from environment to. It influences me, yes, and not to the point anymore that i am "serious" about learning about something nonexistant. In the states we dont have classes dedicated to talking about nothing. We can use philosophy, ponder the what-ifs. If we want to set a cause and do atheist rallies on believers to stop forcing their beliefs on us, thats an individual decision. The point is we Are talking az if something exist and In and only In and of itself just like a class giving a degree for learning about nothing, imho it seems the same in god conversations if one Knows God does not exist.

Is it illogical for the 97% of scientists who totally "get" that global warming is a thing and man contributes to it to debate those who don't believe it? Yes, especially if any of those people either occupy positions of legislative power, or vote

Unless youre voting against believers or making a cause for religious freedom...atheist activist or something, may be...especially when people are killed over it. The question is not political. Its just asking why, in itself, talk about nothing as if it exists.

This confuses me. But the movie you're referencing is Seven. If you have an invisible box, why would you only say it "could" exist, while believing it doesn't exist? You started out saying you have an invisible box .

Semantics. There is no box. Were talking as if there is. That, to me, is illogical Not the reasons behind it.

"With God, why would I want evidence for someone that does not exist? "

Not what my point is. If you wajt evidence that nothing exist based on a claim, thats your thing. It just dawned on me that it is useless (the action NOT the reason) to do so.

The question is based on the action. Everyone gives me reasons Why they would talk about nothing but no one gives me the logic and benefit of the action itself.

Are you implying that some atheists leave open the possibility that some god exists?

Yes, many do. Just by saying "we dont know" or "it is ignorant to say he doesnt" yes.

My OP says atheists who KNOW God does not exist. There is no reason to ask for evidence for nothing. People do it alot based on Other Peoples claims.

Again, because (many) believers are insisting everyone must believe or structure their lives as if they do.

The action itself is illogical not the reasons behind it. I talk out of curiousity. That doesnt excuse its illogical in itself to do so. That just justifies an illogical action because the reason is logical to me.