jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (9 posts)

Why are there so many forum topics about atheism vs. theism?

  1. mathsciguy profile image60
    mathsciguyposted 5 years ago

    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.

    1. NathanielZhu profile image85
      NathanielZhuposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. mathsciguy profile image60
        mathsciguyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        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.

  2. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago

    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.

    1. mathsciguy profile image60
      mathsciguyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      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.

  3. user999 profile image61
    user999posted 5 years ago

    Over saturated. On Hubpages of all sites ...

    1. mathsciguy profile image60
      mathsciguyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Then you always have the sort of mystical, new age-y type people who post their fiction on HubPages who get involved in the debate, and you're just thinking, "what the heck are you doing here?"

  4. Peter Owen profile image59
    Peter Owenposted 5 years ago

    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.

    1. mathsciguy profile image60
      mathsciguyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hooray for argument!

      I think there's truth in this idea of yours Peter.  Probably not entirely true of the population of those who are involved, but I think probably at least somewhat true of the entire population.