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

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 120 by bluegreenearth]

I agree, and would go further. Biblical theism is very subjective. How many times have we heard the apologist attempt to answer a thorny question about the morality of God, with something like "If God does it it is good." God drowns 99% of the life on Earth, but for him it is not evil, runs the argument.

The naturalist, however, sees evil as less subjective, at least within his own species. The naturalist might suggest that among humans at least, cooperation and a sense of fairness and reciprocity are 'good,' while unfairness and destruction of the group is evil.

Frans de Waal famously makes an excellent case for a natural morality that is common among animals.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 120 by bluegreenearth]

I agree, and would go further. Biblical theism is very subjective. How many times have we heard the apologist attempt to answer a thorny question about the morality of God, with something like "If God does it it is good." God drowns 99% of the life on Earth, but for him it is not evil, runs the argument.

The naturalist, however, sees evil as less subjective, at least within his own species. The naturalist might suggest that among humans at least, cooperation and a sense of fairness and reciprocity are 'good,' while unfairness and destruction of the group is evil.

Frans de Waal famously makes an excellent case for a natural morality that is common among animals.

We seem to define morality by the goal we are intending to achieve. If the goal is to maximize well-being and minimize unnecessary harm for the most number of people, then actions which best serve in achieving that goal will be defined as moral while actions that serve against that capacity will be defined as immoral. If the goal is to satisfy the arbitrary and subjective requirements of a God regardless of the consequences that will have on humanity, then actions which best serve in achieving that goal will be defined as moral while actions that serve against that capacity will be defined as immoral. However, since we can't know if a god exists or which of the many proposed gods exists, it is impossible to determine if an action in service to a god is moral or not. Given the choice, it would appear best to adopt a morality that serves in the best interest of the most people regardless of whether a god exists or not.