Since logically you can neither prove or disprove God, why is it that everyone seems to need to press their idea (whichever it may be) on everyone else? Faith is in operation on either side of the arguement.
2006-07-12 13:39:51 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I didn't mean to make such a broad generalization, but it does speak for a large portion of either position.
2006-07-12 13:45:33 · update #1
I am glad you exist here in Yahoo! Answers. I was beginning to worry that there was simply a blind war going on where two sides of the same coin were attacking eac other and that perhaps nobody could see how this has affected the section here.
They can't do it because then they will feel threatened. One who is sure of their "faith" will not give in to threats about it. I find it useful to entertain notions of nihlism at times -not because it is true but just because one can. Looking inot nothingness seems to be enlightening.
2006-07-14 02:15:34 · answer #1 · answered by Ouros 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Faith is the key. By definition it does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. If something did there would be no argument at all. It boils down to people assuming their belief is better than another person’s. When vocalized it becomes a huge snowball and all innocent bystanders are usually sucked in as well. In the end it's really no different than listening to the political arguments of one party verses the other...we're still talking about opinions and beliefs. The reason why a political argument is more easily tolerated is because we have an election process every 2-4 years that give some finality to the subject. Most arguments surrounding religion end with "Oh yea!"..."Yea!"
2006-07-12 20:51:22 · answer #2 · answered by smutz 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As an atheist I have no need to disprove the existence of a god. The burden of proof is always up to the person who claims existence. For example: If I said that I believe in the existence of unicorns, you as a non-believer of unicorns have really nothing to prove. You are merely waiting for me to provide some sort of proof for the existence of a unicorn. If I see no proof of existence then non-existence is the default position.
2006-07-12 20:54:46 · answer #3 · answered by carolina_atheist 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Apparently you're stereotyping large groups based on your bad experiences with a very small minority.
Most christians accept that their beliefs are a matter of faith, and have nothing to do with proof.
Most atheists acknowledge that you can't actually rule out the existence of a god - they don't believe one exists simply because they see no reason to.
2006-07-12 20:43:55 · answer #4 · answered by extton 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"In the book Mere Christianity, Lewis famously criticized the idea that Jesus was a great moral teacher whose claims to divinity were false:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about him: I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon and you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
According to the argument, most people are willing to accept Jesus Christ as a great moral teacher, but the Gospels record that Jesus made many claims to divinity, either explicitly ("I and the father are one." John 10:30) or implicitly, by assuming authority only God could have ("the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" Matthew 9:6). Assuming that the Gospels are accurate, Lewis said there are three options:
1. Jesus was telling falsehoods and knew it, and so he was a liar.
2. Jesus was telling falsehoods but believed he was telling the truth, and so he was insane.
3. Jesus was telling the truth, and so he was divine.
Lewis held that for Jesus to be a liar or insane would contradict his position as a "great moral teacher", and the remaining option would make Jesus both a great moral teacher and divine. This was aimed against a specific line of reasoning which accepts the Jesus portrayed in the gospels as a great moral teacher, but not as a divine being. Lewis maintained that they are failing to deal with the logical consequences of their position.
Lewis's argument was later expanded by the Christian apologist Josh McDowell (in his book More than a Carpenter) to serve as a logical proof to Jesus' Divinity. It is from this latter development that the term "trilemma" actually comes. The term is often used to refer to both arguments, assuming that in fact they are one and the same. Various versions of both Lewis's argument and McDowell's have been extensively debated and frequently attacked by atheists on the truth of their premises as well as the validity of their structure."
c.s. lewis
I think that ppl like to argue. Many "atheists" are often just unhappy ppl, that were in some way hurt, or feel that they were wronged by christianity. And rather then deal with there life, and get over what has happend, they choose to make everybody else around them as miserable as they are. And what better way to hurt somebody then to take away the one thing that brings them peace, and comfort?
2006-07-12 20:48:30 · answer #5 · answered by evil_kandykid 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would like you to explain how 'faith' is in operation on either side of the arguement. That makes little sense to me.
As far as proof of God, this is not a new question: http://www.geocities.com/sector114/htm/proof.htm
2006-07-12 20:47:00 · answer #6 · answered by Michelle A 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the belief that god exists can be very dangerous. You're wrong, the existence of the Christian god can often be disproved.
2006-07-12 20:45:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've never met an atheist who pressed their ideas to the point of trying to convert me. I have met several christians who have tried to convert me.
In my opinion, neither of their arguments are "wrong" for them. But it is wrong for them to force others to convert to their way of thinking.
2006-07-13 14:21:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
same reason democrats and republicans cant and other that people that are on opposite sides of the fence can only agree to disagree
2006-07-12 20:44:38 · answer #9 · answered by BrianKSE2006 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because no matter what, both sides think their right!
2006-07-12 20:46:32 · answer #10 · answered by Chreap 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋