Because Christians feel compelled to push their religion at every opportunity, and unbelievers prefer to push back. And yes, this is about Christianity; it’s not the Hindus or the Buddhists or the pagans who feel compelled to post OPs about how God exists.
I didn’t return to this thread because the migraine I mentioned held on for three days. Thanks for the inputs. Sorry I opened what looked to be a drive by thread; I didn’t intend to ignore it.
Nonsense! I’m perfectly willing to accept evidence that God exists, if any should be forthcoming.
The symmetry you’re proposing is belied by the facts.
The god debate reminds me a lot of certain, ongoing arguments with my husband. There are some arguments about which we will never agree, but we’ll argue about them again and again. And the thing that sucks most of all is that neither of us can offer indisputable evidence as to why we’re right and the other person is wrong. So the argument goes away for a while, then comes right back again eventually - it’s impossible to resolve because we’re both right on certain points, or at least neither of us can prove the other is wrong since much of it is perception.
Much like the question of whether or not god or gods exist, I don’t think you can successfully come to a conclusion as to why the debate continues. There are as many reasons to believe that god(s) does or doesn’t exist as there are people. And as a person talks about the issue, as they try to convince someone else as to why they’re right, they’ll take a different tack with their argument, subtly altering their reasoning (whether they mean to or not) or will throw out an analogy that creates a tangent, then the argument gets derailed.
As an agnostic, in my opinion, the logical scales are stacked far more heavily in favor of atheists than theists. That being said, the evidence on either side is pretty ethereal. Barring photographic or hard scientific evidence, when it comes down to it, you’ve got one group’s word against the other.
The same can be said about ghosts. Do you believe that it’s pointless to debate the existence of ghosts? Should we just agree to disagree?
Why wouldn’t I want to hear from people with differing viewpoints. If all I wanted was to hear what I already think then I might as well go talk to myself.
While most people’s arguments for or against God/god aren’t going to change my mind, I’m still interested in what they have to say. The same is true for issues like gun control and abortion rights. I’m more then willing to hear what someone on the other side of an issue is thinking. It gives me insights into the other side of the issue. So while it might not change my mind on the issue, it very well might change how I think about the people on the other side of the issue.
In like, Whatever we trust.
My mind was changed on this issue a few years ago. It wasn’t a sudden realization, but a prolonged internal debate. I didn’t participate much in the theism v. atheism threads at the time, but I read them . . . er . . . religiously, and they definitely had an impact in my thinking, helping me frame my own arguments and seeing how other people expressed their ideas.
I still read those threads, but I still don’t participate much (although I did join IRTchampion’s theist/atheist reading group a year or two ago) - I’ve had the conversation more than often enough in real life. Becoming an atheist while working on a master’s degree in theology will have that effect.
Yes, I do believe it’s pointless to debate the existence of ghosts. As with a theist vs. atheist argument, both sides are armed with the same extremely ambiguous evidence - one side just chooses to interpret it differently than the other.
I strongly suspect that ghosts don’t exist and, if they do, it doesn’t matter. That said, as with God, I don’t have any empirical proof that says they don’t. So unless I can come up with some, all I’ve got is my own opinion.
Of course, all models are wrong, but some are useful! – George E. P. Box
(Yeah, I know. It’s pathetic that I turned to quotes from statisticians to reconcile theological questions.)
Why are there so many never ending threads about why other people start certain kinds of threads? I wish we could move past this thread is/is not useful and just agree to disagree without all the prove nothing arguments.
Seriously though, god is a big important topic so it’s going to get a lot of play. Either the people involved don’t feel that all the avenues of discussion have been played out, or there’s new people in the discussion. And I don’t think the pure god exists/doesn’t debate shows up that often as a thread, it’s more often part of some other topic, or discussing a particular aspect of the larger argument. If you don’t like it, stick to the threads that do interest you.