Why do Atheists Debate Religion?

[Bunyip]

Yes. It is possible to mishandle and abuse the concept of religion, often out of desire to overrate the significance of belief in God.

Religion is just a word, it can not be abused. Words have meanings and usages that change over time. Also for the majority of religious people the belief in god is foundational to their concept of religion.

To use a word as it is commonly understood, is not abuse.

Sure, religion is not exclusive to those who believe in a god, but that does not mean that people who do take religion to mean a belief in a higher power are wrong to use the word religion to mean a belief in a higher power - it is abroadly accepted and common usage.

Many words have several meanings, all of which are correct in different contexts. It would be false to suggest that somebody using one meaning is abusing the word or concept simply because there are other meanings in other contexts.

 

[Desert Snake]

Many words have several meanings, all of which are correct in different contexts. It would be false to suggest that somebody using one meaning is abusing the word or concept simply because there are other meanings in other contexts.

The problem is that you are arbitrarily just using one specific definition, incorrectly.

 

[Bunyip]

The problem is that you are arbitrarily just using one specific definition, incorrectly.

I would ask you to evidence your accusation, but that never seems to work - so I will take that as simply an outburst.

 

[Drolefille]

I would ask you to evidence your accusation, but that never seems to work - so I will take that as simply an outburst.

I'm noticing a pattern in your posts today. Perhaps stop telling people how to define words and understand that words are used in different ways in different contexts. It is less important about who is "right" in their definition than it is to understand how the word is being used. The purpose of words is to communicate, if we explain how we're using the word then we're good.

Or we can argue about the definition rather than the topic at hand.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm noticing a pattern in your posts today. Perhaps stop telling people how to define words and understand that words are used in different ways in different contexts.

No offence, but you must not have read my comments very carefully. That people should understand that words have different meanings in different contexts was actually my point mate.

It is less important about who is "right" in their definition than it is to understand how the word is being used. The purpose of words is to communicate, if we explain how we're using the word then we're good.

Again, that was the point I was arguing for not against

 

[LuisDantas]

No offence, but you must not have read my comments very carefully. That people should understand that words have different meanings in different contexts was actually my point mate.



Again, that was the point I was arguing for not against

What is the saying again? "Your left hand does not seem to know what the right hand is doing"? Something like that.

Bunyip, you are totally abusing the concept, even while swearing to be denouncing its abuse. I'm starting to wonder if you think that to be funny.

 

[Bunyip]

What is the saying again? "Your left hand does not seem to know what the right hand is doing"? Something like that.

Bunyip, you are totally abusing the concept, even while swearing to be denouncing its abuse. I'm starting to wonder if you think that to be funny.

In what way am I abusing a concept simply by pointing out that it has context specific meaning?

I'm not trying to be funny, or to frustrate you - whatever it is you are taking such objection to is honestly a mystery to me.

At every point I have politely and respectfully adressed any questions about my position - as I say, I have no idea what you are really objecting to.

Religion is a word with several meanings. Like many words these meanings are context specific.

Under one meaning of the word 'religion' Buddism, Confuscianism and even football can be correctly identified as religions.

Under another common usage 'religion' refers specifically to belief in a deity or supreme being - it is not incorrect/an abuse to employ either meaning.

The point is that people are not wrong to view religion as being dependant on belief in a supreme being, nor are they wrong to define religion without reference to a supreme being. The word 'religion' has meanings that fit both of those contexts.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sometimes it is necessary to talk to someone who is a hundred percent rational

Being an atheist doesn't mean you're rational and having faith doesn't mean you're irrational.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You know, I have still not made my mind about that.

I have a hard time understanding Satanism.

Satanists don't really know what to think about it either so I wouldn't waste my time.

 

[Drolefille]

No offence, but you must not have read my comments very carefully. That people should understand that words have different meanings in different contexts was actually my point mate.



Again, that was the point I was arguing for not against

No, you spent several posts trying to tell me I was using agnostic wrong. You can't define someone else's usage of the word "because the dictionary says so." (Which is exactly what you tried to do, and yes I read your posts.)

If you think you're arguing something else, you're doing a bad job of it.

 

[Bunyip]

No, you spent several posts trying to tell me I was using agnostic wrong. You can't define someone else's usage of the word "because the dictionary says so." (Which is exactly what you tried to do, and yes I read your posts.)

If you think you're arguing something else, you're doing a bad job of it.

Not sure why you would be fabricating false accusations, but I will try to respond as best I can.

Firstly, no I spent zero posts trying to tell you that you were using agnositc wrong. Nor did I 'define someone else's use of the word becasue the dictionary says so'.

Sorry, but I can not meaningfully respond to an accusation of something that did not occur.

My point was that religions are about belief, not knowledge. You said that you need knowledge in order to have a belief - religion can not give you that.

 

[paarsurrey]

Here's a question to debate. I'm on a road to search for knowledge, and I find something intriguing. When I joined, I expected a fair number of Spiritualists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Agnostics, Pagans, etc. The one thing I didn't count on was the number of Atheists, I expected a few, but the number was much larger then I expected. I found that intriguing.

I understand people with a religion talking about their religion. I don't understand why some people talk so much about their lack of a religion. Am I wrong to not understand?

Why do Atheists debate religion?

I'm not going to take part in this debate, except to ask questions and dig further into ideas and thoughts.

Side Note: I grew up in a rather Christian community, and do not know many atheists. I expect that I could learn a lot about atheism from this discussion.

Atheism is a transitory stage; they found some negative points in the religion/denomination they were previously in and hence they became atheists. They should have tried to reform the religion/denomination they belonged to. Yet they left it for an unknown destination. Religion is ingrained in human conscience/psychology.

Hence they discuss religion; deprived they are

Never-mind; they are free to believe whatever they like.

I don't think they would ever find any rational or reasonable positive proofs and evidences favoring Atheism.

Then they will leave atheism.

Well; human being have a right to search and research.

Regards

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why do Atheists debate religion?

I don't debate it. I explain to people how and why religious belief is an irrational construct resulting from the vagaries of human social and psychological dynamics, and attempt to enlighten them regarding the merits of reason, rationality, knowledge, and intellectual honesty. It's never really much of a debate.

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheism is a transitory stage;

Except when it is permanent, which is in most cases.

they found some negative points in the religion/denomination they were previously in and hence they became atheists. They should have tried to reform the religion/denomination they belonged to. Yet they left it for an unknown destination. Religion is ingrained in human conscience/psychology.

Some of that I agree with, but we part ways by the time you refuse to accept atheism as the solid, legitimate stance that it actually is.

I don't think they would ever find any rational or reasonable positive proofs and evidences favoring Atheism.

Oh really? Try me.

Then they will leave atheism.

You seem to think of that as both desirable and likely. It is rarely either.

 

[Revoltingest]

Atheism is a transitory stage; they found some negative points in the religion/denomination they were previously in and hence they became atheists. They should have tried to reform the religion/denomination they belonged to. Yet they left it for an unknown destination. Religion is ingrained in human conscience/psychology.

That has happened to some. But I've been an atheist all my life, so I've
never had a religion disappoint me, & I've no desire whatsoever for one.
Belief does seem ingrained in the psychology of some though....just not me.

Hence they discuss religion; deprived they are

I don't feel deprived.

I don't think they would ever find any rational or reasonable positive proofs and evidences favoring Atheism.

On this we agree.

Then they will leave atheism.

One could also see a believer as a "pre-atheist".

 

[ScuzManiac]

The same reason people debate over which movie is better than another...

Or what genre of music is the best....

Or even which girl is sexier....

It's human instinct to voice an opinion regardless of the subject matter...

A lot of people are just too scared (or prideful) to debate religion.

Atheists' lack of religion exempts them from that for the most part.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I don't debate it. I explain to people how and why religious belief is an irrational construct resulting from the vagaries of human social and psychological dynamics, and attempt to enlighten them regarding the merits of reason, rationality, knowledge, and intellectual honesty. It's never really much of a debate.

You remind me of my favourite definition of atheists: those who cannot conceive that the universe could contain anything superior to themselves.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I debate it mostly because religion was where a lot of my focus and study was for years. I was on a quest for truth. The shortest and most honest answer is I still enjoy discussing it. Its an interesting phenomenon.

Another reason is that as an agnostic I'm still open to alleged evidences or proofs for a god.

 

[Ouroboros]

Why do Atheists debate religion?

It's like asking why religious people debate atheism. Why do people debate anything? Should people only debate with people they agree with? So... I should only debate about those who think I'm awesome and can't do anything wrong and those who know that I'm always right...

 

[Sunstone]

You remind me of my favourite definition of atheists: those who cannot conceive that the universe could contain anything superior to themselves.

I personally don't know of any atheists that definition fits. Perhaps it's more of a stereotype born of petty-minded bias and prejudice than an accurate statement of fact.