Threads about God--or god, whatever.

I don’t want a debate on the existence or non-existence of God; I just want opinions as to the following question----Please.

Why are there so many never ending threads re God on these boards? God exists and here’s why—God doesn’t exist and here’s why—haven’t we decided time after time that disbelievers can’t prove God doesn’t exist and believers can’t prove he does exist? I wish we could move past this God exists/doesn’t exist and just agree to disagree without all the prove nothing arguments.

Or is it that I still have my migraine from yesterday and am just generally in a hell of a bad mood?

There aren’t too many people who say “god doesn’t exist.” They respond to those who say god DOES exist by pointing out the flawed decision-making process behind their claim.

Because people on both sides of the argument think that the point they are making will be the conclusive end of the issue, and all they have to do is post it and the discussion will come to an end.

Or, believing the maxim that “all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”, they cannot stand to let the other side’s foolish pronouncements go unchallenged.

I’m going to bring up myths (sacred narratives, not fallacies). One of the things about myths is that, while they don’t really solve philosophical problems in any satisfactory way, they do take the issues out for some exercise, which is important and satisfying to humans for some reason. In contemporary Western society, we have a lot of these myths, but they’re mostly derived from Judeo-Christian tradition. Some people like them as art / literature, some people believe in them as myths (in the traditional sense), some people believe them literally, as history, and some people hate them as a waste of time. Many of the last group are afraid that anyone who takes them seriously is taking them literally, and of course the literalists and the rationalists don’t have much common ground.

God is kind of the same. Talking about God, even in a conversation we’ve had before, is a way for all of these groups to try to articulate their relationship to each other. It’s not really meant to solve the question, but of course such discussions always attract a few extremes from both the Judeo-Christian and Atheist camps.

What I want to know is, in discussions of God, why is it always the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God vs. no god at all? What about gods, plural? Why is it that people can take capital-G God seriously but they can’t at least consider Vishnu? I’d love to see a rationalization that doesn’t come down to “other people’s religions are stupid, but mine is right.”

I just like to try and provide a little food for thought and if someone wants to turn their nose up, wolf it down, or chew it slowly and savour the flavour, it is entirely up to them. I don’t think I’d waste more than a 5-10 line post on shooting the breeze about religion.

Well, the issue of conservatives vs. liberals isn’t going to be solved any time near, either, yet people don’t seem to mind all the arguments related to that issue (and there, we can at least be somewhat confident that both sides have some point, while in religion vs. atheism threads, one side is entirely arguing about fiction!).

Now, see, this is why it never ends. Because one side can’t just make their point. Noooo, that’d be too easy. There’s always some sort of cheap shot, or comprehensive attack implying that not only is the other side wrong, they’re delusional/crazy/evil/heartless/rationalizing their sad, sad lives.

And of course the other side isn’t going to let a personal attack go unchallenged, which starts the whole stupid cycle over again.

That’s interesting–you’ve paraphrased what believers complain that atheists are supposedly saying about THEM–that believers are delusional. etc.

But what are you supposing that the atheists complain about? If a Christian charged me with being delusional, I would just say “Really? What delusion am I suffering from, please?” If they said I was evil, I would ask them to name some evil acts I have committed. “Crazy,” and I would ask on the basis of which professed belief of mine is that claim made, etc.

Which unfounded charge are you saying sets the atheists into some unbridled, incoherent rage? Because I see your complaint as being appropriate in one direction but not the other.

People who say “god doesn’t exist” do too exist! :stuck_out_tongue:

What, exactly, was the attack I made, and to whom? If god exists, then the notion of his non-existence is fictional; if he doesn’t, then his existence is. How’s that not simply truth?

Well, I’m a philosopher, so the whole question of, “It has no real-life impact; why devote all this energy to arguing about it?” doesn’t carry much force with me. :smiley: But here’s a theory: a lot of non-theists are extremely resentful of the extent to which theistic beliefs (such as beliefs about homosexuality) are imposed upon non-believers in the form of laws and social sanctions, and so feel as though other people’s belief in God actually imposes a cost upon non-believers. Thus, they’re going to fight against it, even if that fight is probably futile.

I agree with this (and thanks for using the term non-theist as opposed to atheist, as I don’t consider myself an atheist. I’m more, as my father put it, an “orthodox indifferentist” :stuck_out_tongue: ) but I would say that’s less a problem non-theists ahve with theists and more a problem non-right wing protestant conservatives (at least in america) have with right wing protestant conservatives. I have a few religious friends and we get into theistic… debates? conversations? somewhere in there, all the time.

I like the myth analogy, you kind of dust 'em off, give 'em some exercise, and then put 'em away for awhile. I don’t take the bible seriously, but I do find it to be an interesting source for understanding the peoples it talks about, their traditions, the society in which they lived and why our society developed as it did.

That said I do find people who take the bible absolutely literally to be absolutely ridiculous (especially because they uniformly ignore the parts they don’t like but impose strict interpretation on the parts they do. Example being ignoring the parts about working on sunday being a sin (sorry waiters and, technically, priests) selling daughters into slavery, giving to the poor, but enforce the idea that men sleeping with other men is being a sin) and the earth being 6000 years old? c’mon. I mean, you’re entitled to your opinions, but don’t force 'em on me, and don’t try and get it taught in public schools (unless you’re teaching other religious views as well. I’m all for teaching world religions in public schools)

You don’t need a lot of specialized knowledge to debate the subject, so anyone can join in. Also, the subject is important to a lot of people.

Because it can be kinda fun.

I think the problem is that once you’ve decided one way or the other it all seems so obvious. I.e.

“Of course there’s a God, I feel his presence in my life in every day in countless ways. If you would only open your heart, you too could be blessed by his intercession”

vs

“Of course there’s no god. Just because science doesn’t currently explain everything doesn’t mean you’re allowed to fill in the blanks with whatever fairytale most takes your fancy”

They’re both strong opinions where the person thinks they’ve genuinely figured something out that the general populace doesn’t realise. Once you’ve made up your mind one way or the other, it can be hard to see how everyone else hasn’t reached the same conclusion. That leads you to decide that they’re either ignorant, or purposely being antagonising.

E.T.A. : I mean neither of the two strawmen presented above to be patronising to either side

Well what other forum do we have to share and affirm our common morality, our sense of what is right and wrong? Don’t tell me that we have to rely on our laws to tell us that - they must be based on some “religious” underpinning which must be continually reviewed and discussed and in a very real sense, agreed upon.
“Because I said so” kinda loses steam after we reach a certain age.
And I am absolutely non-religious.

I’ve come to the realization (thanks to a former co-worker) that believers are convinced that there is irrefutable and completely obvious evidence of God’s existence. If someone refuses to believe this they must be deluded by Satan, because any rational and intelligent person would be able to see proof of God’s existence everywhere they look.

Atheists, on the other hand, tend to believe the exact same thing, only in the other direction - that there is absolutely no proof of God’s existence no matter where you look.

Therefore, both sides view the other as poor brainwashed idiots, and it’s their duty to “prove” them wrong. Neither side is capable of accepting anything the other has to say.

I disagree with this. Why, then, would there so many religions that, in their early days never came in contact with each other, share many of the same basic moral principals? Granted there are always exceptions, but to say morality is based on some religious underpining is ignoring the fact that religions that are VASTLY different and from distant reaches of the earth have very similar moral codes. Buddhism and christianity being a good example, and granted Taoism is a bit out there it still follows a lot of the “be good to others” principals that are the tenets of the western religions, just a bit more of a hands-off approach to it)

That’s why it’s nice when they all just shut the hell up and let me eat my dinner :smiley:

Really. It’s all just a model anyway.

(Which is probably the deepest philosophical concept I learned in school. Thanks, Dr. Kirkland!)