Zone1 Most people, atheist, religious, spiritual or whatever else, debate these topics because they're trying to resolve their own uncertainty.

[pal]

Real atheists are not religious.

Thinking is sure a good occupation, my pondering think so.

 

[braalian]

One of the main reasons religions exist is because man is the only animal aware of the fact that he will someday die.

That’s not a fun bit of knowledge to have, and most will naturally seek to reconcile that knowledge somehow

The second reason for religion-specifically organized religion- is to serve as a tool for the ruling classes to preserve the status quo

Telling the impoverished masses that if they endure their poverty and follow the rules they’ll be rewarded after they’re dead was remarkably effective for most of human history

 

[pal]

Atheists fight against other atheists.

 

[0311]

Most people who debate religion, atheists and believers alike, aren’t defending certainty; they’re trying to resolve doubt. Someone who has genuinely settled the question for themselves doesn’t proselytize or crusade. They don’t need an audience or an opponent. Aggressive evangelism and aggressive atheism are the same behavior wearing different jerseys. External arguments used to quiet an internal wobble. The louder the stance, the more unresolved the uncertainty behind it. People who are truly grounded simply live what they believe without needing to win converts or score points. Religious debates rarely reveal truth; they reveal insecurity.

I"m NOT uncertain. I am however CERTAIN THERE IS NO GOD!

 

[Anomalism]

I"m NOT uncertain. I am however CERTAIN THERE IS NO GOD!

Interesting. How can you be certain of a claim that's impossible to validate scientifically either way?

 

[pal]

I"m NOT uncertain. I am however CERTAIN THERE IS NO GOD!

You are really a true atheist. You can think too?

 

[Meriweather]

Most people who debate religion, atheists and believers alike, aren’t defending certainty; they’re trying to resolve doubt. Someone who has genuinely settled the question for themselves doesn’t proselytize or crusade. They don’t need an audience or an opponent. Aggressive evangelism and aggressive atheism are the same behavior wearing different jerseys. External arguments used to quiet an internal wobble. The louder the stance, the more unresolved the uncertainty behind it. People who are truly grounded simply live what they believe without needing to win converts or score points. Religious debates rarely reveal truth; they reveal insecurity.

Discussing religion/God doesn't fit into a single category. One category is similar to that of family discussion and sharing. A second category if similar to relating events that are coming one's way on a journey, or even every day life.

The most widely known debate is seeking truth about God. This should be, even must be a discussion as both sides present their case. It is when talking stops, violence is waiting in the wings to make its entrance.

While doubts may play some role, it may not be all that high on the scale. Many times presenting truth plays the greater role. In Christianity, this dates back to the Reformation. Until this time the same beliefs and practices were the norm in all churches. Fifteen hundred years later, that changed. What is the truth behind each change?

Discussions about God, faith, religion are vital, for when the talking stops.... As one bishop put it, "Charlie Kirk died with a microphone in his hand." In other words, Charlie Kirk was willing to talk. Among those not willing to talk, were those demanding he be stopped by any means, the one who pulled the trigger, and those who celebrated his assassination.

 

[Anomalism]

Discussing religion/God doesn't fit into a single category. One category is similar to that of family discussion and sharing. A second category if similar to relating events that are coming one's way on a journey, or even every day life.

The most widely known debate is seeking truth about God. This should be, even must be a discussion as both sides present their case. It is when talking stops, violence is waiting in the wings to make its entrance.

While doubts may play some role, it may not be all that high on the scale. Many times presenting truth plays the greater role. In Christianity, this dates back to the Reformation. Until this time the same beliefs and practices were the norm in all churches. Fifteen hundred years later, that changed. What is the truth behind each change?

Discussions about God, faith, religion are vital, for when the talking stops.... As one bishop put it, "Charlie Kirk died with a microphone in his hand." In other words, Charlie Kirk was willing to talk. Among those not willing to talk, were those demanding he be stopped by any means, the one who pulled the trigger, and those who celebrated his assassination.

I don't think discussion and debate are necessarily the same. One involves ego and a desire to win, or be right. The other is just communication.

Communication, the real kind where people listen and try to understand each other, comes from a different place than debating God on a political forum I think.

 

[Anomalism]

One of the main reasons religions exist is because man is the only animal aware of the fact that he will someday die.

That’s not a fun bit of knowledge to have, and most will naturally seek to reconcile that knowledge somehow

The second reason for religion-specifically organized religion- is to serve as a tool for the ruling classes to preserve the status quo

Telling the impoverished masses that if they endure their poverty and follow the rules they’ll be rewarded after they’re dead was remarkably effective for most of human history

I would just note that belief in a higher power does not ALWAYS go hand in hand with an actual religion, or religious practices.

 

[SweetSue92]

That’s not what I said. Being commanded to do something and having personal motives aren’t mutually exclusive. A salesperson can believe in their product and still have insecurities about it, their performance, their knowledge, or their audience. Human psychology doesn’t disappear just because a command exists. Outward obedience explains the action, not the inner motive. My point was simply that a command doesn’t eliminate the possibility of insecurity.

That's not what you said in the OP. You said atheists/believers are motivated by UNCERTAINTY

 

[Anomalism]

That's not what you said in the OP. You said atheists/believers are motivated by UNCERTAINTY

In the OP, yes, I was suggesting most religious and non religious types arguing online are masking and are in denial about their own uncertainty.

There's a difference, I think, between actual evangelization, and arguing with atheists on the internet.

Do you see yourself doing Christ's bidding when you go back and forth with people on this forum?

You're not sharing the gospel here, because they're not receiving it. That's not what's happening here. This forum is mostly people barking at the moon, not people humble enough to learn and have their minds changed.

For most people, this forum is used for various forms of catharsis, and nothing more.

 

[SweetSue92]

In the OP, yes, I was suggesting most religious and non religious types arguing online are masking and are in denial about their own uncertainty.

There's a difference, I think, between actual evangelization, and arguing with atheists on the internet.

Do you see yourself doing Christ's bidding when you go back and forth with people on this forum?

You're not sharing the gospel here, because they're not receiving it. That's not what's happening here. This forum is mostly people barking at the moon, not people humble enough to learn and have their minds changed.

For most people, this forum is used for various forms of catharsis, and nothing more.

This is a mess of rationalization.

But at any rate: YES, I am sharing the Gospel whether people receive it or not. If you stand on a street corner, saying here are some free cookies, you are sharing whether people choose to accept the cookies or not.

PS not everything I post is directly sharing the Gospel, but I hope sharing Christian-rooted ideas for the most part

 

[Anomalism]

This is a mess of rationalization.

But at any rate: YES, I am sharing the Gospel whether people receive it or not. If you stand on a street corner, saying here are some free cookies, you are sharing whether people choose to accept the cookies or not.

PS not everything I post is directly sharing the Gospel, but I hope sharing Christian-rooted ideas for the most part

Well...

Maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe it just doesn't apply to you. Or maybe you're just not seeing it.

In any case, no big deal.