What is the Obsession with disproving God existence?
I noticed an increase in topic of God in a disturbing way. I know I will face discriminator remarks cause of it oh well.
But for the sake of Science and rational thinking I am compelled to point the elephant in the room.
What is the point?
If you believe or don’t, it should be absolute if you are a true atheist why are you indulging in such questioning? And why so much effort in discrediting our faith? Just accept your convictions as truth and live your life. You shouldn’t care what others think and believe.
But seeing others harping on this topic leads me to believe is more of a act of retaliation than rational thinking. An opinion of resentment and intolerance. I see no productive reasoning to ask this question? Other than to stroke your own ego, I guess.
To me asking why we believe is insinuating that you have doubts about your own convictions and are considering other faith or ideals
So why ask the question, if you don’t care?
The answer to why people believe is not rocket science. Is actually pretty simple.
I am a Christian cause it bring me joy and happiness. Happiness shouldn’t be rationalized. Is a belief that I follow that release me from my anxiety and depression, it brings positive thinking and optimists to my life.
What is so irrational about pursuing happiness? Why is this concept so hard to understand?
If being a Buddhist makes you happy be a Buddhist
If being a Muslim gives you a fulfilling feeling be a Muslim.
If being a Christian gives you Joy be a Christian.
If being an Atheist and following a particular philosophy bring you satisfaction, than do you.
But don’t pass these philosophical questioning about God as intellectual reasoning you aren’t fooling any one. We all know is a desire to express stereotyping and discriminator thinking.
But for the sake of Science and rational thinking I am compelled to point the elephant in the room.
What is the point?
If you believe or don’t, it should be absolute if you are a true atheist why are you indulging in such questioning? And why so much effort in discrediting our faith? Just accept your convictions as truth and live your life. You shouldn’t care what others think and believe.
But seeing others harping on this topic leads me to believe is more of a act of retaliation than rational thinking. An opinion of resentment and intolerance. I see no productive reasoning to ask this question? Other than to stroke your own ego, I guess.
To me asking why we believe is insinuating that you have doubts about your own convictions and are considering other faith or ideals
So why ask the question, if you don’t care?
The answer to why people believe is not rocket science. Is actually pretty simple.
I am a Christian cause it bring me joy and happiness. Happiness shouldn’t be rationalized. Is a belief that I follow that release me from my anxiety and depression, it brings positive thinking and optimists to my life.
What is so irrational about pursuing happiness? Why is this concept so hard to understand?
If being a Buddhist makes you happy be a Buddhist
If being a Muslim gives you a fulfilling feeling be a Muslim.
If being a Christian gives you Joy be a Christian.
If being an Atheist and following a particular philosophy bring you satisfaction, than do you.
But don’t pass these philosophical questioning about God as intellectual reasoning you aren’t fooling any one. We all know is a desire to express stereotyping and discriminator thinking.
Comments (99)
Because at least half of theist push their beliefs on others
And sometimes trying to find happiness can be immoral
And your perspective is flawed.
Take this example:, your first experience with a different ethnicity is someone who is a crack head ex-con. Now your perspective is a skewed and believe everyone from that ethnicity is a crack head ex-con.
That is the message I am relaying that your way of thinking is Stero-typing everyone like what you think.
But the presumption that all Christian’s are opinionated people who force there belief system on you is falling close in the lines of prejudice thinking.
That is not true.
Is like believing all black people are criminals
All latino’s are illegal immigrants
Or all Asian know Kung Fu.
Aren’t we here to teach tolerance and diverse thinking?
It was a lockdown baby.
If there is one alleged entity with supreme power over human affairs, it would be of interest to examine this idea. Being that so many people believe in it and also being that it causes much suffering despite doing good, it is only fair for people here to point out why such reasons given for this entity are not persuasive.
This ideas has governed much of the "West" for thousands of years, with sub-optimal results...
Sorry but that is a bunch of hog wash motivated by prejudice thinking. Using logic as an excuse to spread intolerance.
Every person has a right to believe what they want without persecution or condemnation.
And this so called philosophy is nothing more than propaganda.
The same type of propaganda you would see from racial stereotyping back in the 50’s
The question is never about the "right to believe" but whether or not "belief in god/s" is rationally warranted. Philosophical discussions and arguments on this point ard not "persecution or condemnation"; if a "believer" feels merely examining her "god/s-belief" is threatening, then she ought not to engage in such discussions. Mostly I find that, observing new thread postings here on TPF in the last year or so as a handy sample, bible/woo-thumpers often proselytizing their faux-grievances and freethinkers usually just responding forcefully – not evangelically – to these evidence-free and sanctimonious provocations.
Yes, some atheists often try to shove down their opinions on theist people.
I believe there to be 2 reason for this.
1) Because atheist dont want theist people to end up being unhappy over something that wasnt logical to begin with. For example:- It is ok to find happiness in God, but is it ok to blame God for the mistakes you have done? Many theists (not all) do it and atheists try to reduce it.
2) Because they don't care about other's opinions and think that only 1 opinion to exist.
The second one of course is an immoral thing to do.
I was never born into a family where my father is an atheist and my mother is a theist (She doesn't believe in a particular God, but believes there to be one.)
As a result, I always had the choice to consider myself a atheist or a theist.
I just happened to not need to find happiness and meaning in God, and thus became an atheist.
However, many people I knew couldn't fathom a world which wasn't created by God.
So, in order to not get bashed about being an athiest (in a hindu surrounding), i had to tell people why God doesnt exist.
Note that I didnt do it because I felt like it was the right thing to do, but because If i didnt, people would think that I am an atheist because I dont truly understand religion.
Although once I grew up to be around 13-15 years old, theists just want to bash on atheist just as much as atheist want to bash on theist.
It isnt a one way argument, both sides have been wrong.
Now that I have more experience with people, I know its fine for people to be either theists or atheist, as long as they agree their flaws.
Atheists aren't greater humans. Just because they believe in truth or dont need to find happiness in something, doesnt mean they are somehow better than others. And atheists should agree to this fact.
Theists also have to agree on the fact, that they simply use religion as a way to find security and happiness, and shouldn't try to prove that Gods exist, as it is most likely false anyways.
Like the Irish catholic belief is slightly different than the Mexican Catholic belief. Not by what you call dogma standard but how we celebrate it.
Like we Mexican’s celebrate day of the dead on November 1st. Which is part of the Latino culture.
Is not just about believing in a supreme being but is also celebrating the culture that surrounds it.
Undermining our intelligence is undermining a culture.
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
There is a need for political correctness when this topic is discussed.
That is really just a personal which really is none of our business.
But why do we care how others pursue happiness.
If believing that the Earth is flat and wearing a aluminum foil hat gives them security and happiness what right do we have to take that way.
It’s there life style choice they can live it how they want.
But won't the majority turn to more materialism and consumerism to fill the void of existential angst and meaninglessness without some belief in something more than material existence?
Do you think existentialism is a viable solution for all?
There are many arguments that show God is not needed as an explanation. There are arguments against Christianity. It is legit to rehearsh these because this is a forum for philosophy. Christianity is like Nazism. It's doctrines are bad and most of its member hurt themselves with that religion. All you want is feelings. Those will betray you
Quoting SteveMinjares
Some atheists and some theists are content with themselves. Others feel a push to convince other's to believe as they do. I would guess out of a subconscious insecurity that maybe they are wrong, and the more they can convince others to believe as they do, the more they themselves will believe. I know I've been in that state of mind. I'm probably in it now. Anyway, it's another part of human nature. Fighting against the maladies of human nature usually serve to further irritate them. It's easier to light a candle than than curse the darkness? Maybe after one has managed to refrain oneself from cursing the darkness, which is hard.
It's a free public service. Adults running around believing characters in children's stories are real has slowed down social progress. And if there is an actual God, then these lies and magical thoughts are a distraction. Some people experienced a great deal of intellectual freedom once released from religious thought patterns, so it is a giving back for some people.
It's very hard to convince someone to change views without first building rapport and trust. This is why first Steel Manning the other's view, then offering an argument against it, politely, will on average work better than characterizing the other's point of view in the worst possible light before arguing against it.
We have to be an example of discipline and thoughtfulness if we want others to also employ discipline and thoughtfulness.
I believe in God and think that most beliefs are based on a literal children's story character. They built an ark in Tennessee. I didn't make them build an ark, so I'm not accepting blame for obvious foolishness.
Follow up: The Ark cost 100million dollars to construct in a state with a household income of 56K. This is a misallocation of resources which has a literal drag on progress towards roads, buildings, anything but silly stories you can't tell adults due to the inability to suspend disbelief enough to enjoy it. It is crippling minds.
It sounds more like a dictatorship than being opened mind to me. This type of ideology is border line of Nazism and how if we don’t think like you than they need to be brainwashed or removed from society.
He said in the OP he is Christian because it gives him tingles. That's building your house on sand if there ever was such a thing
No, Just defending free will, and how all of you are still following the same dogmatic platform but different ideology.
Always preaching about truth but nothing to back up your testimony. If your going to tell me that he is not real show me the proof.
But you don’t even follow your own rules. It just seems is all about ego and the desire to just be right.
I think 'he' is real and misrepresented by childish interpretations. Stories are meant to notify us of the existence of God, but not to describe things in a real sense. Religion wants to inject itself into Cosmology, Evolution, secular laws all in order to maintain the world as taught to children for entertainment in many cases.
Because it's a philosophy forum, and whether or not God is real is an important philosophical question.
The trophy for fastest slide into accusations of Nazism when faced with differing points of view just getting your name etched on it, be with you in a moment.
If theology wishes to recede from philosophy altogether then perhaps it will cease to be a philosophical matter. If it wishes to recede from political interference altogether then perhaps no one else will care either. As it stands, religion is found with its grubby nose everywhere, from the transatlantic slave trade to American science classrooms, so it will have to take its criticism and turn the other cheek. Also, in my experience, there are a lot more pro-theism/anti-atheist threads than pro-atheism/anti-theism ones. Are you going to ask the former to shut up as well, or is your
Quoting SteveMinjares
very much a case of banning blasphemy on a secular website?
No one ever gives Quakers any shit, you noticed that? Amazing how cool everyone is with you when you're not complete bores about your religion all the time.
They fancy themselves victims. He may have a great deal of social networking that relies on it. You can't take a belief away from some one that knows it undeniably, so the fact he's threaten suggest a pretender.
:rofl:
In Philosophy, we must ask and argue about anything in doubt and unclear. When we keep silence, Philosophy ceases to be Philosophy.
I have mentioned it, wait did I? Yes, I did.
I mentioned that theists and atheists alike share their opinions and sometimes force them, and sharing is fine, but forcing isnt.
Flat earthers force other people to have the same belief as them.
Thats why they are wrong in the given situation.
I am far from being religious in fact I am probably the worst Christian around. What I am advocating is civil liberty. And how philosophy can be warped to justify oppression and excuse intolerant thinking.
My fear is not about my faith but warning you all about extremism ideology in any shape and form. And we should be preaching about open mindedness and not this arrogant thinking of I’m right your wrong or vice versa.
Is this sentiment that we need to expelle so we can all evolve as a civilization. If you reduce your self by calling faith as a fairytale than your just throwing out disrespectful babble and no one will take you serious as an intellectual.
Flat earthers are wrong because the earth isn't flat, forcing a belief on someone has no bearing on whether or not that belief is true.
Same could be said for religion as well, if we only talk about it from the 'existence of God' point of view.
If we also look at social welfare and happiness, of course its not as bad as flat earthers.
What if the person actually is wrong, and their wrong belief causes harm?
Isnt it important to correct peoples incorrect beliefs? Of course it is. The question is why should we make an exception for incorrect beliefs being held to account just in the case of religious or spiritual thinking? They should be held to the same standard as everyone else.
My motto in philosophy is - "All I know is that, I know nothing." Does it sound intellectual?
Quoting SteveMinjares
By the way, bringing in the phrases like "civil liberty ... intolerant thinking and warnings", etc sound like power hungry political threats. No thank you.
Good question. I guess if it's an atheist forum then there would be a natural tendency to keep reinforcing the atheist position?
I think philosophical discussions on belief vs atheism should be conducted from a neutral position but that isn't going to happen as people tend to get worked up over things and it tends to descend into mud-slinging and insult-trading.
Personally, I think this is a shame because it is a topic that seems to be of interest to many people (obviously, in some parts of the world more than in others) and both sides can learn from one another.
Finding another forum is probably the best option, depending on what exactly it is that you want to discuss, etc.
Ya, it depends on what the specific religious claim is being made,
My point was that forcing someone to face the truth isnt always a bad thing and though we should have an open mind it shouldn't be so open it falls out. If someone isnt making sense or believes nonsense we should correct them, and if the nonsense is religious then that should offer no special protection from correction. Bad ideas are bad ideas.
Because religion keeps trying to change politics, social policy, legislation and morals in its own interests and against the freedoms of others. For instance, 80 % of Evangelicals supported Trump. The High Court has been stacked with Christian conservatives. The role of women and the status of gay people and other minorities all around the world is made worse by harmful God beliefs. This idea of a magic man who created the world and who commands us is very dangerous. It leads to fundamentalism in almost every country where there is God belief. People who think they know what God wants are amongst the most dangerous people on earth. That's the point.
Since nearly every Christian alive has a guilt complex and uses the religion for childish tingling sensations that make they feel as if they are actually good people, I would say they have nothing to teach anyone about ethics or religion
:up:
I figure you meant "stocked" but your version gives a Kafka flavor to the milkshake.
I next encountered all the individual Ones,
The specialized ‘Gods’ of all the Religions.
They didn’t get along at all, not even for an instant,
For all they had in common was their intolerance
Of the others’ greatly erroneous and unjustifiable beliefs
That clashed with their own, for tolerance as a relief
Was truly Not an attitude the jealous ‘Gods’ endorsed.
The followers of each ‘God’ thought that their own
Irrational embrace of myth trumped the others’ known,
And so this led to many of the religious groans.
I watched the ‘Gods’ battling for a while, steadfast,
In the present, as well as in the distant past,
Their followers’ beliefs scripting the actions,
Conflicts leading to dying for untestable propositions
About where everyone came from and was going to:
Metaphysical Martyrdoms
Conflicted with the Divine Book of Revelations.
Deuteronomy 13:7-11
Stoned those disbelieving in Yahweh,
Killing them, while the Koran eliminated some infidels.
India and Pakistan, different countries domiciled,
Because the beliefs of Islam could not be reconciled
With those of Hinduism, were poised at the brink
Of nuclear war merely because they disagreed, rife,
Over some supernatural ‘facts’ concerning the afterlife.
Karmas ran over Dogmas.
Musharraf suspended Pakistan’s constitution,
To stamp out the growing Islamic militant coalition.
Palestine’s Jews and Muslims scuffled on;
Balkan Orthodox Serbians dueled
With the Catholic Croatians,
As well as with the Bosnian
Albanian Muslims;
Northern Ireland Protestants
Warred with Catholics;
Sudan Muslims discorded
With the Christians;
Sri Lankas’s Sinhalese Buddhists
Went against the Tamil Hindus;
Caucasus Orthodox Russians
And Chechen Muslims
Exterminated each other and their kin;
Iraq’s Sunnis and Shites massacred each other
For some very slight dogmatic differences.
I interrupted their skirmishing and said in haste,
“What about tolerance and respect for other faiths?”
They all answered at once and said, in unison’s beef,
“That’s just political talk. If we tolerated other beliefs,
That would be akin to recognizing them readily
As having some credibility, which they certainly do not.
We are saved and they are all doomed, in peril;
We can’t have them exerting influence in the world.”
“So,” I said, trying to make some small talk,
“I’ve heard that You’ve each written a book
That makes an exclusive claim as to its infallibility.
“Congratulations to each of You on being published.
All have made the bestseller list;
However, I have respectfully shelved all of them
Next to the ‘Egyptian Book of the Dead’
And Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses’,
In the contradictory book and bible section.
“Hey, how about getting modern and making a film?
I know that a book was a great thing way back,
But a moving picture is worth 10,000 still pictures
Which are in turn each worth a thousand words.”
“Indeed, we will each be divinely inspiring a movie
That will soon be playing in a theater near you.”
“Wait, Guys, I take it back,” I said with alarm,
“Are not all your children doing enough harm
By fighting over your books and morality plays?
“Will people now die for another media—the movies?”
They ignored me and fought on, with their kind,
Unable to see but through their own ‘right’ minds,
Doing the opposite of their teachings of love,
Which they were especially and paradoxically out of.
Unfortunately, they now represented the largest threat
That human kind has ever imposed against itself—
All due to differences regarding some very improbable
And differing notions about the nature of the universe.
Have a look at this: Folk think that they are enacting god's will. And the results are irrational and immoral.
Sewing a little doubt is a moral obligation.
I think guilt is something that all people experience in some form or other. As for "tingling sensations", I somehow find it difficult to see what could be harmful about them.
Stacking the deck. Now that is more Hunter S Thompson territory.
I guess many political parties will say that they are doing Gods work. Although believing in “The laws of nature and nature’s God” sounds rather peculiar. I wonder what kind of debate has gotten a result like that.
I am not even preaching about God or faith. I am talking about open mindedness, human decency and respecting your fell peers to think for themselves.
There is this I don’t know, this over analytical weirdness like your trying to find a loop hole in some contract.
I know I am the The only believer here but even I know this is not atheistic thinking but some warp ego trip of desiring to be right.
I haven't seen you in a while - enjoy your stuff. :smile:
Belief in god is used to excuse immorality.
Hence disrupting that believe is a moral act.
God forbid anyone should open their mind completely up, and thereby have full capacity to use it.
Not everybody has guilt problems because you can clean up your karma if you desire. Christianity is all about religious tingles designed by their art and writings to (temporarily) ease guilt. The guilt comes back worse because Christian "joy" is a type of sinful wallowing in one's own perceived specialness
Absolutely right.
And what shall we say of those whose mind is so small that it can easily "fall out" and, God forbid, become lost without trace? :wink:
My point was that you shouodnt be so open minded that you believe anything. Skepticism is just as valuable as an open mind, finding a balance between them is key to not believing in nonsense and/or incorrect things.
Atheists think rationally while Christians juice up their minds with their emotional minds so that they can't see when they have no argument which could defend their faith and their behavior in matters of religion and philosophy. Their narcissistic beliefs get them so drunk that they don't know a good argument from a bad one and common sense becomes impossible ("Jesus is coming out of the sky on a white horse. I KNOW this is true")
Sure. But there are some who might think "Marx or Stalin is coming out of the sky on a white horse. I KNOW this is true". Same difference, no?
Incidentally, on the occasion of the 1945 victory parade in Moscow, Stalin had intended to ride through the parade himself, but he fell from the horse during the rehearsal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Victory_Parade_of_1945
He nearly almost made it only that he didn't quite make it. Apparently, he couldn't even ride.
But I'm sure someday soon he will come down in a tank or something. And a tinfoil hat. Providing he is sober enough, that is.
But definitely something to look forward to, I figure :grin:
Atheists can have faith in false things. All faith will make weak arguments seem strong. That's my point.
There's a lot lately.
Uh, oh, 'God' is joining the thread:
(Click to get it to move as kind of 3D)
That's my point, too.
At least Jesus didn't fall from his horse. Other than that, as I say, same difference. :wink:
That's not God. That looks like my friend who is dying of lung cancer (well, back in his good days)
Jesus said God abandoned him on the cross. He became an atheist as he died and might have been saved. I hope for immortality and want people to be saved. There is a huge divide in my country between pro-choicers and Christians. Both movements I hope to see end and this because they are corrupt
I've started a few threads on the topic of god, and on first glance would be taken as arguing that he doesn't exist.
In several places I have made it clear that the purpose of these threads is not to argue for atheism, but to demonstrate that poverty of the sort of arguments that are involved.
What country is that if I may ask?
usa
I must agree on the poverty of arguments bit. On both sides.
Unfortunately, different people have different levels or degrees of knowledge and understanding of the issues involved (in any discussion) and this can lead to unnecessary frustration and hostility. A more philosophical and detached attitude might help, but it won't change much about the poverty of arguments.
Open minded means I'm open to the possibility that something is true. Sceptical means I am open to the possibility something is false. Neither leads to belief or disbelief, of themselves. I can be entirely open minded to a possibility, yet find no compelling reason to believe the possibility is an actuality. I can be entirely skeptical of a possibility being an actuality, yet not believe it is not an actuality.
That sounds very open minded to me.
And it seems that your mind hasn't fallen out - not yet in any case.
So you must be doing something right ....
So, would you say that the main dividing line is between pro-Choicers and Christians?
Yes
But are pro-choicers not also Christians?
I engage with the argument and logic parts of these questions. In politics you have to take into account both sides
I can agree with most of that, but I think skepticism is more than being open to something being false. I would define it more like assuming something isnt true until there are good reasons to believe it is true. The skeptic says “prove it.”.
But of course by showing there are no good arguments for theism, the remaining position can only be atheism.
Thats rather the point isnt it? Atheism requires no argument.
Pretty sure you called me a Nazi there Gandhi
Yeah, well, here you go ...
An example of a respectful, intellectual encounter of a freethinker (doubter) with a theist (believer).
For the most part, people believe in God for very poor reasons that are easily refuted. Disbelieving in the sky-daddy God is not all together very impressive, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, pretty low-hanging fruit, but doing so can make people feel superior just like winning any other argument can, no matter how stupid it is.
That being said, this is a philosophy forum, so God-stuff is fair game to bring up. I just personally wish the discussion quality was better, and the arguments given for either side more thought-provoking.
SO failing to prove that the Snark is a Boojum is reason to believe there are no Boojums.
Is not about God is the insinuation that all faith-base thinkers are stupid people and stero-typing them as low intelligent individuals.
No what I meant was that if there are no good arguments for theism, and by that I mean convincing ones, then you're going to end up at atheism.
Threads like this are like tossing a bit of bloodied meat into the Piranha River. :naughty:
Do you have any specific examples in which you think someone on here has defended these stereotypes? I wonder if there is some psychological projection going on here.
Otherwise intelligent people can believe in things for very poor reasons. I think that if you are confident in your beliefs and have a stable sense of positive self-esteem, then whatever stereotypes people think of you should not worry you too much. If someone is stereotyping you, that says more about them then it does about you.
If you are sensitive to what other people think of you, this could mean that you are worried they are right. Generally speaking, insults only hurt if you fear there might be some degree of truth to them, otherwise they just don't matter. This fear could be grounded in reality, low self-esteem/self-understanding, or a combination thereof.
There have been times when I have been called stupid, and I didn't care because I knew I wasn't being stupid. Other times, I have been called stupid, and I did care because I wasn't very confident in what I believed. And then finally other times I have been called stupid, and I cared because I realized, yeah I was being really stupid.
When any belief is allowed to fester without opposition you get atrocities like the crusades and Nazism. You should care what others think and believe, because when too many think it it will affect you. "It makes me happy to believe this" is not a good excuse for believing, say, that all the Jews should die is it? So why is it a good excuse for believing in God?
That's it. God beliefs aka religions save Buddhism if you ignore Hinduism absorbing it tend to come with a lot of rules, dos and don'ts that cover every aspect of our lives, it's, as the late Christopher Hitchens calls it, a total solution that micromanages a person's life from womb to tomb, cradle to grave.
We being naturally free-spirited tend not to like rules and religions come with boatloads of them. The response is we'll follow the rules if God exists because if God doesn't there really is no point to it - it would be a complete waste of our time. This in no way implies those who have such an attitude want to do away with all the rules in religion - throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not on their to-do list. The rules have to make sense and they need to be reasonable.
In other words, God must exist if religion is to become part of our lives and it's patently clear that it wants exactly that. Thus people argue about the existence/nonexistence of a God. A lot is at stake - if religion were to be proven false then all religious people would be living a lie, they would've squandered away their lives. Not something a level-headed person would want to do, right?
I agree. The topic of God is controversial. Nietzsche didn't even bother proving God's existence. He declared God is dead. It is a good topic for philosophical debate. I feel that philosophers must rise above their faith and beliefs, and engage the debates from rational aspects. If one puts his faith and beliefs before reasoning, then he should be in church or temple, not in philosophical forums.
1. Knowledge, that is forming justified true beliefs on the the existence or non-existence of God in the theis sense of the word.
2. Religions give lots of rules to follow, if God doesn't exist then these rules are unjustified, so knowing whether or not God exists is important for ethics.
Quoting SteveMinjares
1. So if someone believes that we should exterminate a certain ethnic group we shouldn't care about their beliefs ?
2. Why shouldn't we care ?
Quoting SteveMinjares
1. Assuming that this is true, then that would mean that we are open-minded, which apparently is something you value deeply.
2. Why do you think so ?
Quoting SteveMinjares
If we didn't care, we wouldn't ask the question. But we do care.
Quoting SteveMinjares
1. What is your definition of joy ? And happiness ?
2. Why does it bring you joy and happiness ?
3. So if someone's belief that all theists are simple-minded and dumb brings them joy and happiness, does that justify his belief ?
Quoting SteveMinjares
1. What do you mean by rationalized ?
2. So we shouldn't try to rationalize the happiness a serial killer feels when killing his victims.
3. Why shouldn't we ?
Quoting SteveMinjares
Yeah. So ?
Quoting SteveMinjares
I don't know. Do you think happiness is rational ? If so, tell me why.
Quoting SteveMinjares
1. What do you mean by stereotyping ? And intellectual reasoning ? And discriminatory thinking ?
2. So if a kid questions God's existence he is discriminating and stereotyping ?
3. Why do you think that questionning entails discrimination and stereotyping ?
Absolutely none! The problem is if you claim that the earth is flat you're saying those who believe that it's round are wrong! What a great way to start a conversation!
Second, wear anything you want, aluminium foil hat or the Pope's regalia but don't tell others to do the same. That religious folks try to spread their beliefs not just as an opinion but as the unequivocal truth is what breeds militant atheism which this thread is ultimately evolving into a discussion of.
Furthermore, stating that God is real has inherent implications for not just you, but all people, regardless of the context of your belief. This is particularly true in Abrahamic Religions where the Bible explicitly states that non-believers, along with other groups should be 'stoned and put to death.' Along with other dehumanising features.
ThereminTrees on YouTube proposed an excellent thought-experiment relating to this.
Take for example a person stating that their partner/s is beautiful. There is an implied shorthand of 'my partner/s is beautiful (to me).' TherminTrees says that this does not require a response from you, as it doesn't implicate you. Yet, when the question, 'They're beautiful, aren't they?' Is asked, it does require a response as it is directly is relevant to you.
The same reason can be applied to religion, the statement, 'God is real to me.' Is different to 'They're beautiful, to me.' Because whereas the second statement does not impact you, the first one does. This is seen in a variety of real world applications where people whom may or may not believe in a God or Practise the way they have been taught, have become victims of religion. LGBTQIA+, Women, Slaves, Worshippers of other religions among other groups have been victims of religion. This is why some atheists believe the question of God to be important.
Furthermore religion is increasingly being used as a tool to manipulate groups of people into conformity, and several philosophers argue that instead of increasing morals, religion can actually do the opposite, benefiting the rich and powerful.
Also there is the argument that religions indoctrinate children, which is technically true. Children are taught from a very young age that God exist, Is benevolent, and Omnipotent. These are taught even in the public schooling system. It doesn't matter whether God is real or not at this point, it's about whether or not children have the right to be allowed to make an informed decision on the existence of a God.
Finally the idea that Atheists merely ask the question to express stereotyping and discriminatory views is both flawed and hypocritical.
Your argument exists as the following.
(Please correct me if I am misrepresenting your argument)
This reasoning is flawed because the third premise is incorrect, and the conclusion is only one possible explanation of several, for example.
A asks a question to B, which challenges B's beliefs. B holds their beliefs because it makes them happy, thus A's questioning of B is unnecessary. Thus A is discriminatory towards B.
A asks B, 'Why do you believe vaccination is bad?' To which B responds 'Because it makes me happy.' A then states, 'But there is no scientific evidence to support your claims.' According to your reasoning, A is now being discriminatory.
Note: It doesn't matter whether what B or A is saying is correct in this scenario.
Critical reasoning and questioning of our environment is vital, and without these tools life can become dangerous and we can become easily manipulated. Religion potentially reduces critical thinking, and this is why many atheists can feel the need to question God.
Furthermore, this sounds like an ideology of suppression and dictatorial. Freedom of speech is a vital tenant, an yet in a world where Abrahamic Religions can literally be taught in schools, and in some places become law, speaking out against these religions can be considered as 'discrimination' is absurd. In countries where religion is law and taught in school, (indoctrination essentially) why would questioning that be a problem. Why is it a problem for opening question Christianity and make their views public, when that is precisely what Christianity did, but to a more extreme extent (through colonisation and missionaries.).
Also Atheists do care about the existence of God, otherwise the questioned wouldn't be asked. Philosophy is about understanding everything that around us, and if a God was proven to exist that would have major, major implications on philosophy, so the question of God is vital to all.
Finally your comment on Atheists using the questioning of God as a way to hide discrimination and stereotyping is wrong. Also very hypocritical. Religion is one of the biggest persecutors in the world, and Atheists, particularly those with theistic families, can suffer long-term abuse due to coming out as such. There are so many stories of families being destroyed by atheism and religious people dehumanising atheists, and other groups, like LGBTQIA+ that to blatantly ignore the danger that some people put themselves in by identifying as such is silly.
Also as I've proven above, the question of God has nothing to do with discriminating against religious people, it's about trying to understand the truth of the world around us, because understanding, is greatest way for us to move forward. Sometimes that requires asking difficult questions.
What is the benefit or justification for assuming a proposition is false, before it has been proven true or false? Making assumptions goes directly against the spirit of reason. Every mistake in reason amounts to making some assumption. Prove everything, assume nothing. That's the motto of reason .
Because science discredits the idea of a God, and many take this as the 'proof' in question.
So that you don’t have to waste time on every stupid idea people come up with. Its practical. Its a way of filtering out baseless nonsense.
I used poor phrasing in my last post, its not an assumption but a neutral position moved on only by evidence…or at least a good argument.
They don't use their intellects. They have poor introspective and honesty because they are trying to have faith and this bubbly faith they bring up in themselves colors their ability to think about their arguments objectively.. I look at their arguments on the screen with the sense that "these people are just stupid" and it is not that they were born with low IQ, it is really because they so want to have faith so bad that bad arguments look good to them. It's like a starving person looking at some insect infected food and thinking "this looks delicious". Christian emphasis on faith will alone make their argumentations suspect. Kant was at least honest with all these matters
Good post. Kant, Schelling, Hegel, and Kierkegaard has to sense to know "the doctrines of Christianity have no proof whatsoever for them" but they recognized they had value if people used them to feel good, enjoy the stories, and increase the spiritual and artistic abilities of their minds. IF however people use faith to convinced themselves that bad arguments are good arguments and start an apologetic campaign from this, they have only themselves to blame if their arguments get jumped and beat up