Why do atheists spend so much time arguing about the existence of God?

......

that is exactly why reason must be regarded

an example of an irrational idea that created discontentment would be: slavery, the crusades, the notion of the world being flat (to cite a few classics)

a rational idea that creates discontentment would be: freeing the slaves, or disagreeing with work or ideas done in the name of the lord

unless their is an example of reasonable discrepancy by cause of rationality, i rest my case

is it?.....is it better to continue to let people think the world is flat when doing so causes production of flat models of the world, discouraging exploration and letting ignorance go uncontended?

or is it better to minimize disagreement in accordance to reason as to eliminate collateral damage...

why on earth, would someone be unjustifiably discontented??

where did that human possibility limit come from....

this is something we can both agree on.....

i find the notion that all people can be happy with all aspects of society by way of reason to be a rational notion

why? because we have the resources, technology and intelligence required to make it so....

but since their are so many reasons and methods to preserve irrational institutions, we cannot attain the greatest net happiness for the greatest number of people....

instead of creating and preserving a system that serves to perpetuate happiness for everyone, everywhere, we preserve various means by which freedom & happiness must be earned...

i understand this can be seen as a sort of, wanting the merry-go-round to spin without having to spin it, this isnt the case....energy humans would use to spin a merry-go-round comes from food, food comes from what?

the ground, water, and the sun

thats energy enough isnt it? we are merely condoning a misdirection of energy when we regard profit.....

we are avoiding problems that we know how to fix....

 

I disagree with your concept of "rationality". Rationality, strictly speaking, involves a primary use of reason to solve problems and make decisions. Reason entails the use of logic: induction, abduction, analysis, synthesis, analogical thinking, etc. Reaon can be used in the service of selfish causes: rational calculation of the best way to get ahead. In fact, the discipline of economics and the use of game theory in political science are based on assumptions of selfish rationality. Slavery is an evil but quite rational institution. Whole civilizations, like the Roman, were based on it. At a time when the technology was not available to replace human labor, slavery provided a means for an elite to enjoy comfortable lives by ruthlessly exploiting other humans--evil but rational, in the sense of knowing exactly what they were doing and tailoring means to ends. A flat earth was an erroneous but not irrational idea, based on the available evidence at the time. Many ideas that seemed not long ago to be confirmed by science--e.g., classical Newtonian physics--are now,thanks to relativity theory and quantum mechanics, known to be erroneous as relaible generalisations. But they were not irrational, because they were based on logic and the best available evidence.

Now the Crusades, I'll grant you, was primarily guided by irrational beliefs, but even there they provided a justification for plunder and an outlet for the bloodlust of the knights--evil, but not irrational. You seem to be using "rational" as a synonym for enlightened, which adds a selfless element to logical calculation. Truly enlightened people would realize that selfish pursuit of personal interests would ultimately lead to a Hobbesian "war of all against all". But economists use the term "rational" in a more limited way, to describe material self-interest maximization rather than truly enlightened behavior. Economic Man may conclude that he can make a personal killing in the war, housing market, stock market, etc, and get out before the roof falls in on others.

This is an example of the problem I mentioned earlier--your use of vague generalizations as referents for private meanings. When most people hear the expression
" minimize discontentment" I doubt that they're thinking of the "discontentment" that comes about from acceptance of a false idea about the shape of the earth. In fact, people might be quite content with that false belief, because they don't know any better and they don't experience any adverse consequences from their ignorance--even though there are plenty. Many would be more inclined to think about discontentment of losing or not having something desired, being fired from a job, seeing injustice in the world, etc. That's the kind of discontentment I was thinking of It is generally not better for people to accept false ideas about physical reality, like a flat earth. And there might even be situations in which a person could be better off accepting an idea which might lack a rational foundation. I gave the example of a person in recovery believing a Higher Power was responsible. Without that belief, they might remain in the gutter, drinking or drugging their lives away.

It happens a lot. Many people think they are deserving of greater wealth, status, power,etc, when in fact they are not. That would be a good example of an irrational belief causing discontentment, and it would also be unjustifiable discontent because in fact they may not deserve these things.

 

I'm so glad this thread turned out just like all the others: atheists vs everyone else, and I'm not closer to understanding why they can't just ignore other people's beliefs.

 

rational according to whom?....

i think you using ignorance and rationality as if they were interchangeable

if he who employs a method lacks the knowledge to make a truly conscious and reasonable decision, their are two ways (that come to mind) that make a rise in consciousness possible

1. honest, deep evaluation of his own reason
2. honest, deep evaluation of the oppositions reason

slavery doesn't do this....

the "evil" in saying the emperor of Rome requires slaves to build his Colosseum does not come from the emperor, it comes from the understanding that the emperors reason has been ordained by god; god is the reason for this kind of slavery

now dont get me wrong, im not saying its all gods fault!!! but i do believe you can chalk work done in his name up to ignorance......

error, irrationality......i do not see why they cannot be interchangeable when observing an action performed through an irrational (or erroneous) conclusion

considering the nature of knowledge and the manner by which humans acquire it, the act of eliminating discrepancy through reason is a simple task

if their is no discrepancy from any involved party (because of ignorance)
their is no problem to be resolved, as everyone capable of reason agrees.
this could be an understanding that the happiness of many is not the prime directive, but the happiness of the few.

mind you, they are making an error, but the error is made in unison

and if their is discrepancy from one party their is essentially discrepancy from both; idea vs idea

it is because i am trying to drive the fact that enlightenment and reason are one

a man disagreeing with an assertion such as "god exists" is essentially the universe attempting to balance itself by way of reason

the man that made the assertion has proposed that the natural state of the universe is expressed with a 1 as opposed to a 0, 0 being that the universe either has no cause, or such a cause is irrelevant

this would mean that all subsequent actions according to the "1" train of thought are collateral damage, you cant have 2 without two 1's....it is causality;

this could manifest as killing in the name of god, or killing as a result of a drug deal, (which is also essentially, killing in the name of god)

in essence, reason is enlightenment because a higher (or lower) state of consciousness is reason for discrepancy; a higher or lower state of consciousness is reason for action or inaction

if you have no consciousness, you have no action
if you have a hindered consciousness, your action is hindered
ect

sure irrational belief can make someone happy....thats usually what it does, and i would be inclined to argue that it is its primary function

but that fact does not remove from the hostility of such beliefs

if you are living a certain way because it is just the correct way to do it, what else could be "just correct"

well that depends on what justice entails....

to make a truly conscious decision i would have to know why they think they deserve more than others, or at least take some time to conjure an acceptable statement that exclaims why they don't

 

There was slavery in Rome before there even was an emperor.

Are you saying that all work done in God’s name is ignorance?

 

I think he's saying it stems from ignorance. Doesn't mean it's bad, any more than it's a terrible thing if someone doesn't smoke cigarettes because they don't know what they are.

 

That may be what he's saying and yes, it doesn't have to mean that's bad but I was asking if he believed all work done in God's name is done in or stems from ignorance or would he allow for some works done in God's name not to have been done in or stem from ignorance.

 

Well I can't speak for the other athiests, but that was my whole point, being an athiest but not caring what others think or whether god exists or not, since it has no relevance in everyday life. Just because you don't live in a fairy land doesn't mean you should go around bursting everyone else's bubbles. imo.

 

well, if the statement "god exist and he talks to people" is factual then no, not all work done in his name stems from ignorance[/quote]

if it is not factual, then yes, all work done in his name stems from ignorance

my point is that when someone does something good in the name of god, it is seen as truly gods work, a beautiful thing that should be recognized

but when someone does something bad in the name of god.....the man is crazy and should be locked away, and the religious do not want to take credit for it

 

What I said applied to "all" work done in God's name; that people attribute God's will to things they want or feel they have to do but can't rationalise to themselves.

But you weren't asking me, so I guess I can't tell you for definite what he meant.

 

So you're essentially saying it's ignorance of where those voices actually come from, yes?

I dunno, some factions of Christianity have happily accredited great natural disasters to people not doing what their god tells them to, so maybe it's just a matter of time.

 

im saying it may or may not be ignorance

why on earth would someone do something simply because a voice in their head told them to?

why would 11.90% out of 42 people kill if god told them to, and they were sure it was god?

i simply dont understand it.....

a matter of time until what? world war 3?

time is not responsible for our future....

at least not to the extent that writing such a thing makes me look like a dumbass

 

"Nothing is more terrible than to see ignorance in action."

-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

 

Well, people do that all the time, with or without a god. We tend to think in words, even talk to ourselves to hear those words, even when we don't need to, to see how they sound. It's a pretty small step from that to hearing one's own words in a different voice.

To be fair though, this is a very different question from:

Well, if it was God, with all the characteristics traditionally attributed to him, you'd be a fool not to do what he says, just as you'd be a fool not to be afraid of a hormonal woman.

Still, most religions do have some clause or reference that stresses that you should not obey just any voice. Demons, Satan, all speak to mortals, to tempt and lead astray. There is ample room for the individual's conscience to take over, if they have one.

Until the actions of a lone human shooter, say, rather than grand acts of nature, are seen as God's punishment against homosexuals or whatever. Lots of people believe they do things because a higher power tells them to. I would hope the church would draw the line at agreeing with those individuals, but then, fundi-ism is well on the rise.

 

why is that....

 

Where did you get your figures? How were the 42 people selected? Was this a random sample or a "poll" like the ones we have on Hip Forums, where the respondents are self-selected? If the latter, the poll is unscientific and the figures have no validity. Even with a random sample, 42 is far too small a sample to draw reliable conclusions about the views of typical religious people. Also, how was the question worded? There is a similar poll on another thread on this forum that uses a question so loaded with biased wording that the results are meaningless. It begins with an extraneous accusation that religious people are cowards and pedophiles, and then words the question in such a way that the responents are assured that it really is God (not a voice in their heads) and that the person killed will become a future mass murderer like Hitler. And even after that, most respondents said they'd refuse to go along!

 

i snagged em from the poll in the other thread

;P

 

That's what I figured. Did you happen to "snag" my critique? It closes with:"I would never do such an act, because I would never have the absolute certainty bestowed hypothetically upon me by the OP ."

 

is that to say others cannot hear the voice of god and then act accordingly?

because it has happened......

or so they say......