Why do atheists participate in religious discussions?

[Avoice]

We KNOW their is no tooth fairy.

Would any one waste their time talking with people who did believe it?
No. For what reason? But atheists do this. Why? They are convinced their is no God. So they say. However if that was true then what are they doing here?

There is no such thing as a person who truly, without a doubt believes there is no God. There is always some doubt. And to find out you have to die.

There are really only one reason for the faithless or Godless to be here.

To accuse people of being wrong knowing they can't prove God exists. And I think atheists iare mad at God for not being able to prove he doesn't exist. I think they refuse to believe in God because they are afraid they would have to prove it and they wouldn't be able to. And the thought of losing an argument or not being able to defend it is too much for them. So they just deny God rather than look foolish. They have big egos. They have to be right. Probably have control issues in relationships

[For_The_Kingdom]

Do you want me to take you to task with that on this thread, or another thread? How do you want it?

Start a new one pls.

Lets make a deal; you create a thread articulating how the problem of evil disproves the existence of God, and I will reply to the thread, articulating how/why you are wrong.

Sounds like a good deal to me.

Like it's that hard.
God created everything and is all powerful.
Evil exists.
Therefore god created evil.
To create evil is to be evil
God is evil.
Or...
God does not exist.

As I stated elsewhere..

1. God created all of the elements which are used to create nuclear bombs
2. Therefore, God is the cause of nuclear bombs

Text book non sequitur.

[For_The_Kingdom]

No deal. I am not going to do the heavy lifting for you, especially given your track record of SMH and LOL.

The "SMH"s and "LOL"s are reactions. What I am SMH/LOL'n about, those are the actions. When the actions stop, so will the reactions.

[Danmark]

1. God created all of the elements which are used to create nuclear bombs
2. Therefore, God is the cause of nuclear bombs

Text book non sequitur.

That one is SO easy to refute.
A. nuclear bombs themselves are not evil.
B. There are much better examples of evil in the world which Christians claim their god created:

The flood
cancer
rattlesnakes
poison
opium (actually a good thing, but if you wanna call it evil, god did it..
muscular dystrophy
birth defects
the list goes on and on and includes man's nature which is just like god's and includes destroying things he doesn't like.

Your god is an evil god and a liar because 'he' claims to be good.

The only thing that makes sense is, "There is no god."
'He' is an anthropomorphic invention, an actual and logical impossibility.

[Bust Nak]

The "SMH"s and "LOL"s are reactions. What I am SMH/LOL'n about, those are the actions. When the actions stop, so will the reactions.

They are substitutes in place of actual counter-argument. They have no place in a serious debate.

[Stelar_7]

If the tooth fairy had the same social footprint in my culture that Christianity enjoys, yeah we would talk about that too.

Having said that I enjoy the conversations. It's good to get a change to see things through the eyes of someone who views things differently than I do.

[OnceConvinced]

As I stated elsewhere..

1. God created all of the elements which are used to create nuclear bombs
2. Therefore, God is the cause of nuclear bombs

Text book non sequitur.

But don't Christians apply this type of logic all the time when it comes to God? I'm guessing you do to. For instance, when a Christian recieves some kind of blessing its usually as a result of actions they or other humans have taken, yet they still give credit to God for it.

For instance:

Christian accomplishes some kind of impressive act.
"God gave me these abilities which enabled me to accomplish this feit"
Text book non sequitur?

Someone gives a financial gift to someone
"God provided me with much needed funds at the right time".
Text book non sequitur?

Someone gets fit and healthy due to good excersise and diet
"God gave me a strong healthy body".
Text book non sequitur?

Someone cooks family a meal and has it delivered.
"God provided us with a hot meal".

So shouldn't there be consistency in thinking here? If we are to give God credit for all the good things we and others have done, then shouldn't it also be applied to the terrible things as well?

Someone creates nuclear bombs out of raw materials.
"God provided us with nuclear bombs".
See how close that is to "God provided us with a hot meal"?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 106 by OnceConvinced]

This type of logic is employed constantly by the tribe. It's the result that counts, not the logic. God created everything including evil and the tools of evil, but he is not evil. God made birth defects and horrible diseases and animal predation and natural disaster, but it's not his fault. It's ours. Everything was perfect until WE 'fell.' God knew that of course, knew it would happen before we were a twinkle in his/her eye. But he did it anyway and it's our fault.

It's ok. We can take it. It's god who apparently can't take responsibility, but we can do it cheerfully. Our shoulders are bigger than 'God's.'

How DID all this nonsense thinking ever get started in the first place?

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 106 by OnceConvinced]

There is no question (Biblically speaking) that God intervenes and plays an active role in our lives.

The question is ultimately; when, and it what way does he do it?

I don't necessarily know if there is an answer to this.

I have personal testimony at which I prayed, and got "in real time" answers to my prayers that would have been too much of a coincidence unless there was something else going on.

But then again, we can't attribute every good thing that happens to us as a result of divine intervention, because good things happen to bad people too.

I will have to put more thought into this..definitely. But I still think my analogy stands.

[Zzyzx]

.

Why do atheists participate in religious discussions?

One motivation may be to encourage Theists to demonstrate to readers the extremes they are willing to go to justify their beliefs in ancient tribal tales “written by people who didn’t know where the sun went at night.�

Verbal gymnastics, word play, evasion, ducking key questions, demeaning science, claiming knowledge of 'gods', etc may impress 'the choir' but are less likely to impress reasoning people among readers of these threads.

[For_The_Kingdom]

The "SMH"s and "LOL"s are reactions. What I am SMH/LOL'n about, those are the actions. When the actions stop, so will the reactions.

They are substitutes in place of actual counter-argument. They have no place in a serious debate.

So, when you say something that I shake my head about or laugh out loud about, what should I do?