I'm not really sure what the current debate is even meant to be, however (nor if I can even be bothered to jump into what I imagine will be a long and cyclical reply-chain)
There wasn't supposed to be a debate. Just a single question with a single answer. Sanity Check managed to derail the entirety of my thread until it was destroyed and moved over into a vague, general general discussion. So now the entirety of the conversation is based on him strawmanning atheists, and it's perfectly fine because it's no longer off-topic.
This is what I get for being nice and questioning in good faith. Which I guess is an answer in and of itself.
Imagine being able to prove mathematically and/or empirically the existence of a presumably Christian god and by extension solve a significant portion of the metaphysical and philosophical questions that come with this and being all "meh, I'll get to it when I get to it".
When you live in a world where most americans complain about healthcare being broken.
And almost none of those people can take a few minutes out of their day, to research the basic facts of how and why healthcare is broken.
Its not farfetched to say our culture and society do not consider facts on healthcare, God, religion or anything else to be a priority.
Someone could publish a valid method to prove God exists using math and science, and people would avoid it, the way they avoid financial and political literacy.
If the goal is to respect peoples boundaries, then many important truths and facts about the world, go unsaid. There is a long list of things that could be said about history, science and religion that are vitally important, that are swept under a rug and ignored. This is how people prefer things to be. People don't want their boat rocked or their views challenged. This is why echo chambers are so popular in this day and age.
That's how its been for many years. Since forevers.
Also, if you really could provide substantive proof, you'd have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in selling the books (hell, loads of people sell plenty of books that don't provide such strong evidence/proof)
Then please stop being so passive aggressive and alluding at the stupidity and poor debating skills of users here (named or not)
It's not just unhelpful, it actively lowers the tone of the whole debate
I won't jump in for M3J, but, for me, true 'freedom' (for use of a better word) would certainly contain the ability to go against one's purpose
One can certainly be 'purposeless' and 'free'
I guess it might be said having a purpose, is simply actions which align with a person's values, beliefs and views.
The point of conflict may lie in accountability.
Christians prefer a world of justice where Mother Teresa -might- go to heaven, and Hitler -might- go to hell. There is an order and symmetry to everything that is intuitive and makes sense.
Atheists want to be able to make any choice they want, without consequences. Which is something else entirely.
This entire premise falls apart when you stop lying to yourself (or stop being intellectually dishonest) and realize that everything you listed here is also done by those who aren't Atheists.
Of course you'll respond with an appeal to purity, but that's not a worthy counterpoint for obvious reasons.
There is no atheist "platform". It is not a political party, or a religion with orthodoxy. There is no atheist doctrine. There is nothing you can point to that supports any of your claims.
But of course you'll continue to say you have no one you can debate religion with and wonder why. I wonder if you're even capable of doing that without resorting to the vilification of people that don't share your beliefs.
You didn't do a good job maintaining the focus, of whatever you wanted to discuss.
I would contend having a purpose is consistent over time.
Its not supporting something one day, and supporting the opposite the next.
Unless of course inconsistency is the purpose.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
When you live in a world where most americans complain about healthcare being broken.
And almost none of those people can take a few minutes out of their day, to research the basic facts of how and why healthcare is broken.
Its not farfetched to say our culture and society do not consider facts on healthcare, God, religion or anything else to be a priority.
Someone could publish a valid method to prove God exists using math and science, and people would avoid it, the way they avoid financial and political literacy.
If the goal is to respect peoples boundaries, then many important truths and facts about the world, go unsaid. There is a long list of things that could be said about history, science and religion that are vitally important, that are swept under a rug and ignored. This is how people prefer things to be. People don't want their boat rocked or their views challenged. This is why echo chambers are so popular in this day and age.
That's how its been for many years. Since forevers.
--- Double Post Merged, ---
Nah.
Who buys books? Who even reads books anymore?
.
I don't think or feel anything negative, towards anyone here.
Its really surprising to me that anyone feels as if I'm being negative towards them.
People wanted to discuss and debate things. I'm only giving them what they specifically asked for.
I never asked anyone to discuss any of these topics, it was 100% their idea, not mine.
I guess it might be said having a purpose, is simply actions which align with a person's values, beliefs and views.
The point of conflict may lie in accountability.
Christians prefer a world of justice where Mother Teresa -might- go to heaven, and Hitler -might- go to hell. There is an order and symmetry to everything that is intuitive and makes sense.
Atheists want to be able to make any choice they want, without consequences. Which is something else entirely.
Come on, that's some weaksauce logic lol. The vast majority of scientist publish their work knowing full well the vast majority of people simply don't have the knowledge to understand or value their work. And they do it anyways for the love of it.
This entire premise falls apart when you stop lying to yourself (or stop being intellectually dishonest) and realize that everything you listed here is also done by those who aren't Atheists.
Come on, that's some weaksauce logic lol. The vast majority of scientist publish their work knowing full well the vast majority of people simply don't have the knowledge to understand or value their work. And they do it anyways for the love of it.
Save your obtuse political takes for other threads please, unless it's contextually relevant. Saying atheists believe in doing whatever the fuck they want because they're deviant democrats doesn't count btw.
Me?
Pretty sure books haven't entirely gone out of fashion yet...
... how about a paper in a scientific journal then?
Those definitely are still widely consumed and would be an ideal place to publish your seminal work on the proof of God's existence
I don't think or feel anything negative, towards anyone here
Its really surprising to me that anyone feels as if I'm being negative towards them
Many seem to believe they're better off not knowing things. I respect the choice but wish I had someone knowledgeable as I know that arguing with the type of person who invested time and energy in the topic, is a good way to learn more than what normally could be learned
and pretend that you are not trying to stick a [rather unsubtle] dig at some of the people here
I told M3J off for personally attacking you, but I can't believe that you were not expecting it when you post these kind of replies to people
... that's all I'm gonna say on this to be honest
I'd rather have a reasonably polite discussion here - even if no one here is all that likely to be able to convert (for use of a better word) 'the other' to their side of the argument
You already said that. So um, still weaksauce logic? I already said this so it's kinda awkward. You are going for, I assume, provocateur but it sounds more like you object to not getting attention. Which is just bad salesmanship.
I would disagree, considering the amount of responses I got from everyone who didn't fail to answer the question except for you. There was only one other theist here who answered, and they STILL accurately answered with no difficulty.
You're literally the only one who couldn't, or wouldn't, engage honestly.
I would contend having a purpose is consistent over time.
Its not supporting something one day, and supporting the opposite the next.
And I would contend that certain purposes require fluidity and adaptability. I'd also contend that very few people actually go looking for a purpose. They just become adhered to whatever's the most important thing in their life and focus on that. The vast majority of people, religious or not, find purpose in making sure their family and friends thrive. And that's no less important than fellating an invisible man in the sky.
Due to lacking knowledgeable people (in real life) to argue religion with.
Its not an insult. Many seem to believe they're better off not knowing things. I respect the choice but wish I had someone knowledgeable as I know that arguing with the type of person who invested time and energy in the topic, is a good way to learn more than what normally could be learned.
You are not good at lying or gaslighting, thankfully. Nice attempt at backtracking though.
What would be the motive behind rebelling?
If some people deserved to go heaven, and some deserved to go to hell. What's wrong with people getting what they worked hard for, with their own choices and decisions?
What if some people do not deserve to go to Heaven, and some people don't deserve to go to Hell, but that happened solely because one side appealed to God's ego despite being evil while the other side despite being good did not suck up to God?
No it is not. It means you have to stick to that purpose and can't do what you want.
Obviously it means making God feel better about himself. STroking his ego. Making him think he's good, and you're loyal no matter what.
I won't jump in for @M3J, but, for me, true 'freedom' (for use of a better word) would certainly contain the ability to go against one's purpose
One can certainly be 'purposeless' and 'free'
I don't think true freedom exists, not amongst humans anyway. Not as long there are laws, rules, societal norms, society, and etc that people feel compelled to follow.
Christians prefer a world of justice where Mother Teresa -might- go to heaven, and Hitler -might- go to hell. There is an order and symmetry to everything that is intuitive and makes sense.
Christians prefer a world of justice where Hitler would go to Heaven simply because of his bigotry and hatred, while someone like Mother Teresa would go to Hell because she "helped" others but also seemed to be agnostic.
Nazis are full of Christians, as are KKK, and even in the USA the Nazis were gaining traction amongst white Christians until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. USA has whitewashed this part of history, as they whitewash almost everything else to look better.
Christians prefer a world of justice where Hitler would go to Heaven simply because of his bigotry and hatred, while someone like Mother Teresa would go to Hell because she "helped" others but also seemed to be agnostic.
Mother Theresa would also go to hell for her fetishization of suffering and refusing basic medical care to people in her clinics despite receiving millions in donations. As well as publicly defending pedophiles like Donald McGuire.
In my opinion, the way humanity is going is one of ever greater integration, even if it often does not look that way.
From scattered tribes to cities, from cities to nations.
From ethnic or birthright elites to civil rights, from civil rights to true equality.
It had its setbacks, but over the course of the world, humanity become ever more moral. Today, we have to undertake a huge effort to lie to ourselves to be cruel. We wouldnt just (like in former times) usually admit to ourselves that we are going to kill and rape other people for our own material gain or fun, nations need to lie to their constituents to pull that off (exceptions prove the rule).
We even need to lie to ourselves to some extent to kill animals for meat, a lot of consumers would not want to see how the sausage is made or flat out reject it.
And that is great. I want to live in a world where we include everyone and think of every person as a worthy life that needs to be protected and enabled to live out its potential.
And I think the problem with religion is that it is inherently exclusive. Even religions that have the endgoal of uniting everyone (christianity and islam for example) obviously exclude those who do not believe.
Even if people are nice about it (are not actively trying to attack nonbelievers or deem some of them worthy), clearly, every religious person thinks their religion is noble and people who believe are better than those who do not in some shape or form (or at least more liekly to be).
At least their religion pushes to that assessment. Islam and Christianity both push the notion that they lead to a more moral life and that there is unity among religious people that is NOT among believers and nonbelievers. And that is a divisive tool.
Our modern western society pushes for inclusion of everyone, so wants a society in which ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, handicapped people or people with religious restrictions feel at home and can live together as equally respected and as one society.
THey should see each other as part of the same society rather than two different groups.
But religion pushes for the opposite of that and that is my big problem with religion. There are exceptions. I think the german protestant church tries to push for social integration, while the catholics and islam does not.
But generally, the notion of there being a god that looks favorably on some people but not on others, based on whether you share the religious group identity or not, is very problematic.
Mother Theresa would also go to hell for her fetishization of suffering and refusing basic medical care to people in her clinics despite receiving millions in donations. As well as publicly defending pedophiles like Donald McGuire.
