The first question that comes to mind when I see people talking about the various ways people have argued for the proof of existence of God, but then also by extension the arguments that people put forth for the proof of the nonexistence of God, or atheist arguments.
My question is why would I need them? What are these arguments doing for me?
What is going on in a persons mind that would ask them to put forth such arguments?
I could speculate about these but it would be nice to hear from the people themselves. I simply put it as a case in fact; there are people who adhere to these arguments and battle each other out over why God should exist or why are you doesn’t exist and all these things.
But likewise – I’m not sure what these arguments have to do with me. I’m not sure what they have anything to do with how I proceed in my life or my ethics or morals or lack there of. To me such arguments are very simple exercises in logic. They’re like mental exercises, like working out the muscle of your brain in various categories, using various clausal structures, various and variable definitions of definite terms. And if there’s a larger sense then their really just arguing over cultural values, in a specific sense of someone who is involved with cultures or subcultures or just groups to think alike whether they are defined labelled or what.
But indeed people like Richard Dawkins feel like they’re addressing something significant. I’m not entirely sure what the significance is; I think that is the question I’m asking here. But I feel that at least some of the important if not the whole argument itself is really an argument over a way of life. There is nothing to say that atheists won’t get in wars; and there’s nothing to say that religious people will be peaceful. Nor vice versa. It seems like an orderly empty conversation to me.
So if anyone knows any theists as well as any atheists, I would love to for them to come over here and tell me what the significance of the argument is.
I am not being obstinate or Socratic or playing dumb or anything. I will have to ask my friend Dave over a big story guide why it’s important, but I feel like his answer, because he’s Christian, will be something about saving our souls or something like that. But that’s OK I don’t see anything wrong with a belief that has something to do with your soul; such a believer could lead to being pacifist and such a belief could lead to being violent. I’m not sure why some people see the belief in God necessarily amounts to some sort of ignorance or lack of education and to believe that arguing atheism somehow conveys intelligence and education; I’m not sure that’s the argument but it would be great if someone from both sides told me what the significance is in their discussion.
So for me it seems apparent that most people would be involved somehow in that argument and saying something to the extent and arguing and such at such a way to say that God doesn’t exist or does exist, and we can’t leave out the agnostics because the term “agnostic” itself is already basically meant argument.
It’s not that I am an atheist or that I am an agnostic. It really is that I’m not sure that these types of questions have any basis in truth. They indeed have a basis in reality, but then one could argue that if the bases is only concerning reality then there’s really no point in discussing it except as we might be discussing it in terms of violence.
The basic question is how it is possible that we have different opinions on the possibility of things. As well, why we feel it’s important to try to convince people of such beliefs. A further question could shed light: I may have a belief on water usage; does this have the same importance of a belief in God?
Isn’t is obvious in the coming up against a different belief that yours is merely a belief and thus not based in any truth? Why would a person continue to get so wrapped up in the attempt to challenge others beliefs?