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

[Matthew S Islam]

Greetings

God's existence as a Necessary Being is known through the rational senses.

The sciences have concluded that classic logic is incapable of conveying reality.

Would you mind explaining this further?

It is derivative. There is only one rational sense. Sight, smell, hearing, etc. are not rational senses. They are non rational senses. Regardless, the intellect derives information from the world around it as well as whatever is going on within it, but it is nonetheless still derivative. It is not immediate. It is a derivative medium, and therefore can never be fundamental or foundational to reality . What is known is clearly not and never can be God as God is "defined" as "omniscient", and omniscience can't be known. You may eat from the tree of knowledge, but when you no longer mediate reality through reality, you are cut off from reality and life itself. You are now "living" through the senses rather than experiencing an immediate connection to ultimate reality.

I also recognize limits in the overall potential of rationality, however I think your approach goes too far and negates what God has bestowed upon man. God is All-Knowing and He created us and the Heavens and the Earth with Wisdom. Everything that has been granted to us of knowledge and all of our future events have been determined by God Himself. Had He willed, He could have increased or decreased in any aspect of His creation.

So what exactly do you take issue with someone claiming that independence, eternality and capability are qualities which are necessary in order to explain existence. The argument makes sense rationally, and from what I gather it is consistent with your understanding of God.

The fact that something exists rather than nothing conclusively demonstrates the necessary existence of God Almighty.

No, it demonstrates that something exists.

1. Everything that exists requires an explanation
2. The Universe exists
3. The Universe's history is finite and it contains a limited number of contingent parts
4. God's existence is necessary as an explanation for the contingent Universe

It is yet to be shown that God is something. From a biblical perspective this claim flies in the face of all these authors hold sacred. They do not believe in a god that objectively exists as this is their definition of idolatry. They even go so far as to point out that "God" can't be imagined without one becoming an idolater.

God has eternally existed with all His Names and Attributes. However His Names and Attributes are unique, perfect, and eternally associated with Him (He doesn't increase/decrease in His Divine Ability).

The only thing which could create something new in eternity-past is an Eternal Will choosing to perform the action.

There is no such thing as "eternity-past". Terms such as "past, present, and future", or "before" or "after" are all in relation to time. There is no past or future to eternity. There is no beginning or end to eternity.

The intention behind eternity-past was to emphasize absolute eternality. The first creation/event which ever took place must have emerged via the Will of an Eternal Self-Sufficient Entity.

Had Atheism been true then "existence" itself should become impossible.

Non sequitur. Given that this is a Christianity debate site, I will confine my comments to the logical arguments of the biblical authors, and they clearly point out that "YHVH" means "I will be", or "I will be what I will be". This is not a reference to what is, but potentiality. Note that regardless of which articulation you prefer, neither one presents God as anything.

My claim is that nothing other than God (Eternal Will) has the potential to exist or generate existence. The phenomenon of existence itself is Supernatural and dependent upon God's Qualities. If God did not exist, then it would be known by the absence of events, possibilities and existences.

Anything other than an eternal void of nothingness would provoke contingency and require God's Necessary Qualities to justify its existence.

If something exists = God's existence is necessary

If you look at what you just posted, you're attributing existence to God, but attributes are not what or who they are attributed to. A more accurate equation would be to point out that

I believe God has eternally existed with His Perfect Names & Attributes in a manner which befits His Divine reality. Allah (God) is attributed with Life, Essence, Will, All-Seeing, All-Hearing, All-Powerful and All-Knowing.

if something exists, existence is necessary.

Right on. The objective was to illustrate that our ability to identify existence necessarily implies the Supernatural qualities of God to justify how that thing exists.

Something exists rather than nothing, therefore God's (Necessary Qualities) existence cannot not exist. He's necessary for rationally justifying the existence of other than Him.

If nothing observable existed = Insufficient evidence to establish God's existence

Not quite sure why observation is necessary.

The intent behind it was to say "had there been nothing rather than something, then I wouldn't be able to determine God's existence." My ability to acknowledge God's existence is dependent upon my own existence and abilities. God would have existed regardless of my creation and acknowledgement of Him, however His reality wouldn't be made known without Him creation of other than Him.

[shnarkle]

Can you articulate as to how do you KNOW that the Biblical God is false? Or is that an empty statement which isn't backed by any evidence whatsoever?

It would save everyone a whole bunch of keyboard work if Christians just posted the tiniest scrap of evidence the THEIR version of "God" really DID exist outside of their imaginations and on the pages of the sectarian promotional literature.

Otherwise we New Atheists are more than justified leaving the biblical Jehovah/Jesus/Holy Ghost combo-deal in the same unprovable category as the Tooth Fairy.

It's the all-round absence of evidence that does it for us.

It's "faith alone" that does it for Christians.

Now, about that evidence - not for God per se - but for the Christian versions of God ….

He has a point, which you ignore due to the fact that what you know to be imaginary isn't God at all. Just as important is the fact that to provide evidence is to effectively become apostate as only what exists in the created world can be shown to exist. This is not what a Christian believes. So you are asking a Christian to believe in a God that they don't believe in in the first place, and then go looking for evidence of your ideas of God.

It would save you a lot of time punching keys if you considered the fact that the bible points out that God is "incomparable". One cannot provide evidence of what is incomparable. You're asking for something to compare to your idea of what a god is supposed to be, and as he pointed out , how can you know your idea is the true idea?

More importantly, just what gives you this idea that anyone of these believers believes that God is an idea? That's your definition. The fact is that ultimately, there can be no definition or referent for transcendence. Redefining the meaning of words only spotlights that you don't have an argument to begin with.

To attempt to refute this point is to leave the keyboard incapacitated and mute. Therefore, the only response left is to offer something other than a refutation. This only spotlights that conserving time on a keyboard isn't really a genuine concern for you.

[OnceConvinced]

Is faith alone enough to prove that gods exist?

The big problem with faith is that there is nothing you COULDN'T believe by employing faith. It is no guarantee it will lead you to truth because it can lead you down all sorts of crazy paths. Just look at all the Christian cults there are out there.

Faith can lead people to do some monstrous things. It could be argued that ALL atheists SHOULD be on sites like this one to debate against Christianity. It can cause some serious harm and I've seen it myself. Atheists should be out there on street corners promoting the dangers of faith in Jesus, shouldn't they?

. If that is the case with you, how do you know that the particular god you believe in is real while all the others are not?

Indeed. We could ask Avoice about these other gods. Are you against them? Do you tell people they are false gods? Do you stand up and tell people they need to choose Jesus over all these other gods? That he is the only one true God?

If so why? Is it because you are angry with them? Is it because you hate them?

[OnceConvinced]

So much wrong and misinformation in one post. Bravo!

We KNOW their is no tooth fairy.

Do we?

Ohh, wait, wait, wait. Lets see..

"We can't prove a negative".
"We can't prove the nonexistence of something".

You know, those are the two typical atheistic responses to theists, when they say "You can't prove that God doesn't exist".

Now once the tooth fairy's existence is called into question, now all of a sudden, "Do we really know that the tooth fairy doesn't exist"?

Foolishness.

Do you really think that is what Benchwarmer is trying to do? You don't see it as intended irony? As a satiracal response? It definitely was when I said it earlier.

Most of us long term members are well aware that to say "Prove something doesn't exist" is a shifting of the burden of proof. But we sometimes use irony in the hope that those people who say "Prove God doesn't exist", will see just how aburd that statement is.

[SallyF]

The biblical version of "God" is described by its mythographers as having:

A voice …

A finger …

A face …

An eye ...

A backside …

It can walk on this planet …

It can hurl fire and brimstone down on gay folks …

And perhaps other physical attributes that haven't come to mind.

The Jehovah/Yahweh/Whatever version of "God" is described/imagined by the writers in very physical terms.

Hiding this mythological, ethnic deity behind a smokescreen of some abstract concept like "philosophy" or "transcendence" is not valid.

[shnarkle]

Greetings

God's existence as a Necessary Being is known through the rational senses.
The sciences have concluded that classic logic is incapable of conveying reality.

Would you mind explaining this further?

Explaining what further? The first statement was not mine. I disagree with it. The second statement is proven with a number of experiments, one of the earliest being the parabolic lens experiments which show that classic logic is incapable of conveying what's going on in the world.

It is derivative. There is only one rational sense. Sight, smell, hearing, etc. are not rational senses. They are non rational senses. Regardless, the intellect derives information from the world around it as well as whatever is going on within it, but it is nonetheless still derivative. It is not immediate. It is a derivative medium, and therefore can never be fundamental or foundational to reality . What is known is clearly not and never can be God as God is "defined" as "omniscient", and omniscience can't be known. You may eat from the tree of knowledge, but when you no longer mediate reality through reality, you are cut off from reality and life itself. You are now "living" through the senses rather than experiencing an immediate connection to ultimate reality.

I also recognize limits in the overall potential of rationality,

I wasn't just addressing the potential of the intellect, but the fact that it is the wrong faculty to mediate reality.

however I think your approach goes too far and negates what God has bestowed upon man.

God didn't bestow the intellect as a mediator of reality. God gave us the intellect as a sense just like all the other senses.

God is All-Knowing and He created us and the Heavens and the Earth with Wisdom. Everything that has been granted to us of knowledge and all of our future events have been determined by God Himself. Had He willed, He could have increased or decreased in any aspect of His creation.

Is there some point to this? I missed it.

So what exactly do you take issue with someone claiming that independence, eternality and capability are qualities which are necessary in order to explain existence.

Again, you lost me. I don't know how you got this from what I posted.

The argument makes sense rationally, and from what I gather it is consistent with your understanding of God.

Still not following what you're talking about.

1. Everything that exists requires an explanation

Sure, but an explanation isn't God. God isn't an explanation.

3. The Universe's history is finite and it contains a limited number of contingent parts

What do you mean by contingent?

4. God's existence is necessary as an explanation for the contingent Universe

Paul points to God as the source or origin of the universe, but he distinguishes between God and Christ who is the means. Do you see where the universe fits into that equation? Do you see where contingency really resides? The Universe is not contingent. Christ is contingent, and he points out that we are contingent as well, but only insofar as we know the world (as opposed to being known in the world)

It is yet to be shown that God is something. From a biblical perspective this claim flies in the face of all these authors hold sacred. They do not believe in a god that objectively exists as this is their definition of idolatry. They even go so far as to point out that "God" can't be imagined without one becoming an idolater.

God has eternally existed with all His Names and Attributes.

Again, you're ignoring the authors plain statements. Eternity is an attribute, but attributes are not inherent in what they are attributed to. The same is true for existence, names, etc. God is not existence, or a name or even eternity. It is a contradiction in terms to say that God existed eternally. Eternity has nothing to do with time. Things happen in time, and God is not a thing. God is not anything.

However His Names and Attributes are unique, perfect, and eternally associated with Him (He doesn't increase/decrease in His Divine Ability).

Associating names, attributes, etc. with the word doesn't make the word God. To talk of associations is to refer to identification, and as closely related as identification is to identity; identification is not identity.

The intention behind eternity-past was to emphasize absolute eternality.

That may have been your intention, but it doesn't negate the fact that eternity has nothing to do with time or any aspect of time. Nothing happens in eternity. There is no such thing as a time before the beginning of time. Eternity doesn't end where time begins and begin where time ends. Eternity is not a very long time.

You're conflating eternity with references to time which is like conflating eyes with ears just because sources of light can be heard. Just because you can see the sun, or hear a bolt of lightning does not mean that lightning is the sound wave it produces, or that the rays that hit the earth are the sun itself. Likewise, just because there is such a thing as a beginning and end to time, it does not then follow that eternity can be understood in terms of time. Eternity is the means by which time exists. It doesn't then follow that eternity can be constrained or extended by time.

The first creation/event which ever took place must have emerged via the Will of an Eternal Self-Sufficient Entity.

This assumes that creation is an event or a series of events rather than a continuous flow of creation. It also assumes that there is such a thing as a supreme entity which is to define God, and an incomparable God cannot be defined in the first place.

Had Atheism been true then "existence" itself should become impossible.

Non sequitur. Given that this is a Christianity debate site, I will confine my comments to the logical arguments of the biblical authors, and they clearly point out that "YHVH" means "I will be", or "I will be what I will be". This is not a reference to what is, but potentiality. Note that regardless of which articulation you prefer, neither one presents God as anything.

My claim is that nothing other than God (Eternal Will) has the potential to exist or generate existence.

You just contradicted yourself. You have just taken Paul's and my position. Eternal will doesn't actually have anything which is why it is referred to as potential. The potential to exist doesn't actually exist. To claim it does it to contradict yourself.

The phenomenon of existence itself is Supernatural and dependent upon God's Qualities. If God did not exist, then it would be known by the absence of events, possibilities and existences.

As the source of existence, it is a contradiction to claim that he exists as this necessarily negates his role as the source of existence. You can't know the absence of events that never existed in the first place.

if something exists, existence is necessary.

Right on. The objective was to illustrate that our ability to identify existence necessarily implies the Supernatural qualities of God to justify how that thing exists.

No, your objective was to prove that God exists by proving that things can only exist if God does. I have addressed and refuted that claim. I have also refuted your replies to my arguments.

Something exists rather than nothing,

And yet nothing is the only counterweight that is appropriate to existence. They're both eternal, which is to say that existence is eternal, and nothing doesn't exist eternally.

therefore God's (Necessary Qualities) existence cannot not exist.

Sure, but God's qualities or attributes are not God; they're his qualities and attributes. Note also that attributes can only be attributed to things, and God is not a thing. John's introduction affirms that everything is created and God is not a work of creation.

attribute
[attribute]

VERB
(attribute SOMETHING to)
regard SOMETHING as being caused by (someone or something).
"he attributed the firm's success to the efforts of the managing director" · [more]
synonyms:
ascribe · assign · accredit · credit · impute · allot · allocate · put down to · set down to · chalk up to · lay at the door of · hold responsible for · pin something on · lay something on · place something on · connect with · associate with · stick something on

We can attribute all sorts of things to God, but it is not proper to assume that this is something we can actually do. This is to create God according to our ideas, or imagination. This is idolatry.

NOUN
a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.

When we regard something we consider it or think about it, but "our thoughts are not God's thoughts", and what we think about God are nothing more than thoughts; God is not a thought, idea or a concept that can be thought or imagined in the first place.

"had there been nothing rather than something,...

This is a contradiction in terms. Nothing doesn't exist in the past, present or future. Therefore it is contradictory to say "had there been nothing".

... then I wouldn't be able to determine God's existence."

It does not then follow that since there is something, that God can be determined to exist, especially given that God is not a thing. God is not anything.

My ability to acknowledge God's existence is dependent upon my own existence and abilities.

You are making God's existence dependent upon your existence which again is practically the biblical definition of anti-Christ. it also flies in the face of Paul's doctrine of election, not to mention the fact that you are articulating the conditions of the Old Covenant rather than the New. The Old Covenant was dependent upon one's will and abilities whereas the New is dependent upon the faith of Christ generating a new heart to not only believe, but to fulfill all of God's commandments perfectly.

It is dependent upon God being an idea. This is because one can't acknowledge anything other than ideas. 'This is the currency of the intellect. What you are acknowledging can only be through the intellect. To acknowledge is to recognize, and recognition is a faculty of one's intellect. This all takes place within the intellect itself, and God doesn't exist within the intellect. We know this due to Paul's observation that there can be no mediator between God and humanity except for Christ. He doesn't add our intellect as an additional mediator. To introduce an additional mediator only separates one further from the truth.

There was no mediator in the garden except Christ, but humanity sought to know God rather than have an immediate connection to the source of all life.

God would have existed

Again, you're referring to God in finite temporal terminology.

[benchwarmer]

So much wrong and misinformation in one post. Bravo!

We KNOW their is no tooth fairy.

Do we?

Ohh, wait, wait, wait. Lets see..

"We can't prove a negative".
"We can't prove the nonexistence of something".

You know, those are the two typical atheistic responses to theists, when they say "You can't prove that God doesn't exist".

Now once the tooth fairy's existence is called into question, now all of a sudden, "Do we really know that the tooth fairy doesn't exist"?

Foolishness.

The only foolishness was claiming to KNOW something that we can't know. Perhaps you can enlighten us on how we can KNOW the tooth fairy doesn't exist?

Many theists trot out the lame retort "You can't prove god doesn't exist" when they can't support their claim that a god DOES exist.

Look, if someone makes the claim "gods don't exist" then you are well within your rights to ask for evidence of that claim. Is anyone here in this thread making that claim? No, of course not. Those of us who know better would never do that.

So, what's foolish? Oh ya, not supporting claims made. i.e. knowing the tooth fairy doesn't exist. I await evidence from either Avoice or FtK to clear this up as apparently they know something we don't.

[Zzyzx]

.
'I don't believe your god tales' seems to REALLY irritate (and threaten?) god worshipers.

Asking them to provide verifiable evidence to support their claims of knowledge of invisible, undetectable, proposed supernatural entities REALLY sets some off -- perhaps because they know full well that they have no such evidence to present -- nothing more than unverifiable ancient tales, testimonials, opinions, and conjectures (plus a few threats and promises for 'after you die').

People who believe in alien abductions, Big Foot, Loch Ness monster, etc to not seem to get anywhere near so emotional when their tales are not believed or they are asked for supporting verifiable evidence.

Why should god beliefs be any more immune from challenge than any other 'entity' that cannot be shown to be more than imaginary?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by Avoice]


The answer is as unique as are the atheists who participate in religious discussions.

As one atheist who does so, I have many reasons. One of the reasons is that I find it amusing.


Tcg

[Diagoras]

...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.

I’m quite new to the forum, but my observation is that many of the atheists who engage in debate are quite capable of defending their claims. I’ve been impressed by a number of forum members who obviously put in time and effort to inform readers with fact-based evidence, not just opinion. And when they do have opinions, they make sure they are clearly identified as such. I ‘liked’ OnceConvinced’s post #19 in this thread for these reasons.

What I observe contradicts your suggestion entirely. Moreover, the few replies on this thread which might be considered ‘pro-theist’ seem to be more concerned with tangential arguments about things like ‘God as a necessary being’, rather than supporting the claim that atheists only post here because they are ‘mad at God’.

I would submit that your OP has been satisfactorily rebutted, but of course, would welcome commensurately strong evidence in its support if you wish to provide it.