Pointless Debate

[Unveiled Artist]

I know there is many definitions of what atheist believe. My threads definition is for those who Know God does not exist. Many theist say they
Know God exist. Some, many, personal experience, NOT all.

Youre missing the point.

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]

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.

Can I make an observation? I'm going to assume you said "Sure!" It seems like when you create threads like this asking for people's opinions, you spend a lot of time rejecting their interpretation of your question. The assertion that people talk about gods as if they exist because other people who believes those gods exist want legislation based on that belief is completely rational as an answer to your question. Ask yourself, if no one was seeking any legislation based upon their religious beliefs, would atheists be as outspoken as they are? When those beliefs are used to enact both foreign and domestic policies? You don't get to simply toss that aspect out the window.

Nevertheless, after drilling down some of your attempts to clarify, it seems that what you're really asking is why would an atheist speak of a deity as if that deity existed. The answer is simple, when an atheist is talking to a believer in that deity, it often fosters a smoother road to understanding each other if the atheist can assume the mantle of the believer, and if the believer can assume the mantle of the atheist. Some of the greatest understandings come from being able to imagine walking in another person's shoes.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If you look at many religious mythologies, whether or not the deity really exists or not is pretty much irrelevant. Much of Greco/Roman mythology is about the meaning of the story, not the historicity of it.

I dont understand how that relates

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Its also possible that atheists are anti-theists that view religion and belief in god as harmful. So why wouldn't they attempt to debate theists and challenge them on their harmful beliefs?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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"?

If God does not exist, then the question of why so many people believe in God gets very interesting and, IMO, deserves exploration.

 

[Marisa]

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.

And I'm telling you that there is a reason and offering you an example of what that reason would be. When an individual or group of others is insisting that you should believe, too, or conduct your affairs as if you do, then it is completely reasonable to ask for evidence. I even gave you several examples of how that is happening in the US.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

Exactly my point. They are taking it personally.
If someone came to me and asked, why are you talking about nothing; what interests you in talking about air? It may make me ponder, hmm all this time Im debating in a vacuum.

It is interesting. I agree not many theist debate about atheism.

 

[McBell]

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?

Perhaps it is the atheist trying to understand why the theist believes in nothing?

Of course, you have some people, both theist and atheist, who want nothing more than to shove their beliefs down the throats of others.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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

Entertaining yes, the action itself logical, no.

But we keep going back and forth with reasons not the action itself.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

I see how that makes sense. I was more focuses on the action itself. I talk about God out of curiousity, learning different perspectives, etc. These reasons illogical, no; the action, yes.

 

[Marisa]

Entertaining yes, the action itself logical, no.

But we keep going back and forth with reasons not the action itself.

You asked why it's done. That quote sums it up. It is completely logical, if your goal is to understand.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

True. Can you see thay the action in and of itself is odd not the reasons behind it?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

True. Can you see thay the action in and of itself is odd not the reasons behind it?

Re-phrase this question. I'm not sure exactly what you are asking.

 

[McBell]

Um. I think we're pretty much evenly split on that.

My apologies to those who do not fit into the stereotype.

I was merely using the same broad brush as the OP.

 

[Nakosis]

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"?

For me, I choose not to believe in any of the concepts of God. Mostly because since I see no real way of validating any of the concepts. So why choose one over the other? However I'm always interested in why people do decide to accept one particular concept of God over another. According to them, what justifies their belief. I also think it is important to have a forum to discuss our thinking and test relevant ideas ideas with each other. It leads me often to reexamine my own thinking.

 

[McBell]

Have you actually done this?

Yes, I have.

If you were to actually pay attention to my posts beyond your cookie cutter replies to me you would have learned by now that I do not have an active belief in regards to to god.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Only because I hear the reasons, I too have reasons I talk about a God that does not exist and Im not asking for reasons behind talking about God. Its a linguistic, psychologic, and philosophy question. Not political, spiritual, personal, and anything like that.

When I ask a theist to talk as if God does not exist, they say "why?" I understand the logic behind that answer. I turned the tables and athests get more fustrated with the question than the theist.

Everyone is taking it personal. Its not a personal question.

Can I make an observation? I'm going to assume you said "Sure!" It seems like when you create threads like this asking for people's opinions, you spend a lot of time rejecting their interpretation of your question. The assertion that people talk about gods as if they exist because other people who believes those gods exist want legislation based on that belief is completely rational as an answer to your question. Ask yourself, if no one was seeking any legislation based upon their religious beliefs, would atheists be as outspoken as they are? When those beliefs are used to enact both foreign and domestic policies? You don't get to simply toss that aspect out the window.

Nevertheless, after drilling down some of your attempts to clarify, it seems that what you're really asking is why would an atheist speak of a deity as if that deity existed. The answer is simple, when an atheist is talking to a believer in that deity, it often fosters a smoother road to understanding each other if the atheist can assume the mantle of the believer, and if the believer can assume the mantle of the atheist. Some of the greatest understandings come from being able to imagine walking in another person's shoes.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If God does not exist, then the question of why so many people believe in God gets very interesting and, IMO, deserves exploration.

True. I dont see how thay relates.

 

[Marisa]

Only because I hear the reasons, I too have reasons I talk about a God that does not exist and Im not asking for reasons behind talking about God. Its a linguistic, psychologic, and philosophy question. Not political, spiritual, personal, and anything like that.

When I ask a theist to talk as if God does not exist, they say "why?" I understand the logic behind that answer. I turned the tables and athests get more fustrated with the question than the theist.

Everyone is taking it personal. Its not a personal question.

You said you have reasons. Other people have offered you their reasons. If it's all about reasons, and each reason is as personal as the person answering the question, then one of two things needs to happen: you need to better word your question so that people are accurately understanding what you're trying to learn, or you need to understand that that not everyone is going to have the same reasons for doing anything that you have for doing that thing.

The only frustration I've seen here is the shear number of non-believers who have answered your query in an almost identical manner, and you frustrated that you're not being understood. A dear friend of mine once share this with me: if 6 people are telling you your car is blue, and you still think it's red, may you're the one who needs another look. You bear a certain responsibility for making your meaning clear.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True. I dont see how thay relates.

You don't see how asking theists why they believe what they believe relates to figuring out why they believe what they believe?