Posted in Education and Science because I don't intend for this to turn into a debate about which one is "the way to go." The intent of this topic is really just to do some meta-cognition about the discussion itself. Many theists work from the Great Commission premise, that believers are to go forth and make other believers of their fellows. Other reasons might include fear of the rise of a dominant atheistic power (refer to works such as the Left Behind series by Mr. Lahaye and Jenkins, or to the numerous warnings against the influence of the godless by televangelists).
Atheists perhaps have a similar fear of a theocracy something akin to the strict religious regimes seen in the middle east of late. Or, simple irritation or superiority complexes may come into play for some atheists (every atheist knows a fellow non-believer who has no really rational reason for disbelief, but only follows what seems to be fashionable to them). And of course there are other reasons for both sides.
So, what are they? Talk about why you participate in atheism vs. theism forums.
Religion/non-religion is at the heart if nearly every belief or practice a person does; It's the way we live life and thus is no surprise that many people like to emphasize such an important aspect of their life. A writer especially a philosophical writer which I see very commonly on hubpages, who gives their beliefs about God and universe attracts the believers of other practices and non-believers. Like-wise, believers of different practices expresses their beliefs in a hub/forum post and attract the opposing views.
Why is the debate between atheism and theism endless to the point where both sides merely repeat the same answers every time?
It is because both have different criteria for judging what is the truth or even that many don't care about the truth at all.
Religious followers judge the truth through faith (mostly through experience and feeling) and attest that evidence is flawed while non-religious people attest that experience and emotion are ineffective at deciphering the truth and that the correct way is empiricism.
This is the bottom line. There is no way of convincing either side which belief is correct because it is the priori in which all belief is based upon. Debates are based on this premise but can not affect it, at least to a great degree.
Like you, I'm not trying to turn this into a debate, but merely an analysis on why the religious vs religious vs non-religious debates are endless.
I'm with you on this one NathanielZhu. I see where you're coming from and I agree, for the most part. What do you think makes either side so insistent, though? I don't mean in the sense that they don't give up their beliefs, but rather why do both sides go through so much effort to "make believers" out of their intellectual opponents. Why do you, for example, put forth the effort that you do to educate others as to your views?
I, personally, engage in the discussion because I haven't completely ruled out the possibility that something exists outside the realm of human experience. Now, I don't see that, even if such a thing did exist, it interacts much with the physical world (or even anything that DOES exist in the realm of human experience - thought, belief, emotion) at all, so I don't put very much emphasis on the importance of it's potential to actually be there. After all, a cause which has no effects can't really be said to be significant, right?
But, as I said, I don't entirely discount the possibility and so I find it enlightening to test the mettle of the claims made on behalf of such a being by those who assert its existence. So, for me, it's a matter of intellectual integrity. I will keep hearing arguments from both sides until both sides run out of arguments, because the subject interests me and I would be dishonest with myself to say that, with certainty, the issue is resolved in either party's favor.
Only speaking for myself. I detest ignorance being perpetrated through the churches and therefore through the children of those continuing the cycle. Those of us not indoctrinated still feel the effects caused by those which are.
That's is certainly understandable, and I don't blame you a bit. Though I've known some terribly ignorant non-believers, as well as some frighteningly non-ignorant believers.
Thanks for your input, though, and good luck fighting the good fight against ignorance everywhere.
people like to argue, and neither side can prove the other wrong. So it will always be an argument, and people can argue to their hearts content.
by Cecilia7 years ago
I find the god no god discussion so tired. Yet for some reason when human behavior is discussed good and evil creeps in, sin and virtue. What about humanity and its complexity without tainting it with religious...
by Jenna Ditsch5 years ago
I am sincerely curious as to why those who do not believe in the existence of God would spend time and energy to convince others to believe the same? I am asking this respectfully and am seeking true, valid...
by Julie McFarland4 years ago
I wrote a hub on how faith is not required in order to be an atheist. Someone requested that I turn it into a forum thread as well. My position is that atheism, by definition, is the lack of a belief in a...
by Kathryn L Hill3 years ago
According to the dictionary, the term Deism was used during the intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries. Deism accepts "the existence of a creator on the basis of reason," but rejects the belief...
by Peter Freeman6 years ago
I'm not a big fan of getting into controversial discussions in the forums. I prefer to read than write here, but this has been bothering me for a long time. There are some deep questions that I want to ask. When I talk...
by earnestshub6 years ago
What would happen if non-believers left the religious to their own devices.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.