Why does God's existence (or lack thereof) matter?

[MayIHelpYou22102]

Silver Screen

mistercombine

To be frank, I don't care about Religion, as long as said Religion doesn't attempt to cram it down my throat. That means you, Southern Baptist Church.

It'd be nice if everyone would respectfully keep their beliefs to themselves, wouldn't it? Militant belief really chaps my a**.

"I'm a very religious person and I'd have to agree. It's funny when I want to bash in the heads of annoying people who are preaching my faith!"

 

[Kuchen Fairy]

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Why does it matter? Because we have to be right. Everyone has to be right, and NOBODY CAN PROVE IT. So it's hotly contested.

So why bother? Nobody can ever be right because it can never be proven. It's like the beginning of the universe - we can't prove our beliefs on what happened are true.

Why bother? Because WE HAVE TO BE RIGHT. If we can't prove it on logic, we'll use subtle trickery and brute force to get you to change your mind.

Again, it doesn't matter. We never will be right - at least not will full knowledge that we are. We can say we "have to be right" but that means absolutely nothing. Being militant about your beliefs annoys people more than it convinces them anyway.  

[Fresnel]

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Why does it matter? Because we have to be right. Everyone has to be right, and NOBODY CAN PROVE IT. So it's hotly contested.

So why bother? Nobody can ever be right because it can never be proven. It's like the beginning of the universe - we can't prove our beliefs on what happened are true.

Why bother? Because WE HAVE TO BE RIGHT. If we can't prove it on logic, we'll use subtle trickery and brute force to get you to change your mind.

Again, it doesn't matter. We never will be right - at least not will full knowledge that we are. We can say we "have to be right" but that means absolutely nothing. Being militant about your beliefs annoys people more than it convinces them anyway.

Hahaha, you bring your logic into a debate about human behavior...  

[Kuchen Fairy]

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Why does it matter? Because we have to be right. Everyone has to be right, and NOBODY CAN PROVE IT. So it's hotly contested.

So why bother? Nobody can ever be right because it can never be proven. It's like the beginning of the universe - we can't prove our beliefs on what happened are true.

Why bother? Because WE HAVE TO BE RIGHT. If we can't prove it on logic, we'll use subtle trickery and brute force to get you to change your mind.

Again, it doesn't matter. We never will be right - at least not will full knowledge that we are. We can say we "have to be right" but that means absolutely nothing. Being militant about your beliefs annoys people more than it convinces them anyway.

Hahaha, you bring your logic into a debate about human behavior...

Okay, then. I want you on the offensive.
Explain to me how asking an unanswerable question - meaning one without a right or wrong side - will render either side correct, thus allowing them to achieve that sense of rightness. Go ahead.

I'm not asking about how it makes some people "feel." This isn't about feelings. I'm asking how it's logically a reasonable approach to achieve some degree of knowledgeable or moral gain.  

[Kuchen Fairy]

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Why does it matter? Because we have to be right. Everyone has to be right, and NOBODY CAN PROVE IT. So it's hotly contested.

So why bother? Nobody can ever be right because it can never be proven. It's like the beginning of the universe - we can't prove our beliefs on what happened are true.

Why bother? Because WE HAVE TO BE RIGHT. If we can't prove it on logic, we'll use subtle trickery and brute force to get you to change your mind.

Again, it doesn't matter. We never will be right - at least not will full knowledge that we are. We can say we "have to be right" but that means absolutely nothing. Being militant about your beliefs annoys people more than it convinces them anyway.

Hahaha, you bring your logic into a debate about human behavior...

Okay, then. I want you on the offensive.
Explain to me how asking an unanswerable question - meaning one without a right or wrong side - will render either side correct, thus allowing them to achieve that sense of rightness. Go ahead.

I'm not asking about how it makes some people "feel." This isn't about feelings. I'm asking how it's logically a reasonable approach to achieve some degree of knowledgeable or moral gain.

See, here's the thing - one can only achieve a legitimate degree of rightness if one is actually correct. But there is no known/applicable side to this issue, therefore such a thing does not exist. You cannot be applicably right when the right answer or belief is undefined.

 

[Fresnel]

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Why does it matter? Because we have to be right. Everyone has to be right, and NOBODY CAN PROVE IT. So it's hotly contested.

So why bother? Nobody can ever be right because it can never be proven. It's like the beginning of the universe - we can't prove our beliefs on what happened are true.

Why bother? Because WE HAVE TO BE RIGHT. If we can't prove it on logic, we'll use subtle trickery and brute force to get you to change your mind.

Again, it doesn't matter. We never will be right - at least not will full knowledge that we are. We can say we "have to be right" but that means absolutely nothing. Being militant about your beliefs annoys people more than it convinces them anyway.

Hahaha, you bring your logic into a debate about human behavior...

Okay, then. I want you on the offensive.
Explain to me how asking an unanswerable question - meaning one without a right or wrong side - will render either side correct, thus allowing them to achieve that sense of rightness. Go ahead.

I'm not asking about how it makes some people "feel." This isn't about feelings. I'm asking how it's logically a reasonable approach to achieve some degree of knowledgeable or moral gain.

See, here's the thing - one can only achieve a legitimate degree of rightness if one is actually correct. But there is no known/applicable side to this issue, therefore such a thing does not exist. You cannot be applicably right when the right answer or belief is undefined.

Does it matter if the question HAS a true answer or not? If I asked you 'does chocolate taste good?', is there a right answer? No, not really. But if you were in a room full of people who hated chocolate, I bet the last words out of your mouth would be 'You're all ******** crazy', or something to that effect. Maybe you're half joking, but you're half not. If you THINK you're right, that's all you need. And if you're right and someone else thinks differently, that makes them wrong, QED. There's no two ways about that.

As an example, this very debate. Does it matter? No. Is there a right answer? Probably not. So why are we arguing?  

[black_wing_angel]

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Why bother? Because WE HAVE TO BE RIGHT. If we can't prove it on logic, we'll use subtle trickery and brute force to get you to change your mind.

Again, it doesn't matter. We never will be right - at least not will full knowledge that we are. We can say we "have to be right" but that means absolutely nothing. Being militant about your beliefs annoys people more than it convinces them anyway.

Hahaha, you bring your logic into a debate about human behavior...

Okay, then. I want you on the offensive.
Explain to me how asking an unanswerable question - meaning one without a right or wrong side - will render either side correct, thus allowing them to achieve that sense of rightness. Go ahead.

I'm not asking about how it makes some people "feel." This isn't about feelings. I'm asking how it's logically a reasonable approach to achieve some degree of knowledgeable or moral gain.

See, here's the thing - one can only achieve a legitimate degree of rightness if one is actually correct. But there is no known/applicable side to this issue, therefore such a thing does not exist. You cannot be applicably right when the right answer or belief is undefined.

Does it matter if the question HAS a true answer or not? If I asked you 'does chocolate taste good?', is there a right answer? No, not really. But if you were in a room full of people who hated chocolate, I bet the last words out of your mouth would be 'You're all ******** crazy', or something to that effect. Maybe you're half joking, but you're half not. If you THINK you're right, that's all you need. And if you're right and someone else thinks differently, that makes them wrong, QED. There's no two ways about that.

As an example, this very debate. Does it matter? No. Is there a right answer? Probably not. So why are we arguing?

What about people like me?

Personally, I accept the likelyhood that I'm wrong in my beliefs. I even admit that I more likely "wrong", than "right". So when someone tells me I'm wrong, I tell them "You hope."

So...where does that put me?  

[Fresnel]

black_wing_angel

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Why bother? Because WE HAVE TO BE RIGHT. If we can't prove it on logic, we'll use subtle trickery and brute force to get you to change your mind.

Again, it doesn't matter. We never will be right - at least not will full knowledge that we are. We can say we "have to be right" but that means absolutely nothing. Being militant about your beliefs annoys people more than it convinces them anyway.

Hahaha, you bring your logic into a debate about human behavior...

Okay, then. I want you on the offensive.
Explain to me how asking an unanswerable question - meaning one without a right or wrong side - will render either side correct, thus allowing them to achieve that sense of rightness. Go ahead.

I'm not asking about how it makes some people "feel." This isn't about feelings. I'm asking how it's logically a reasonable approach to achieve some degree of knowledgeable or moral gain.

See, here's the thing - one can only achieve a legitimate degree of rightness if one is actually correct. But there is no known/applicable side to this issue, therefore such a thing does not exist. You cannot be applicably right when the right answer or belief is undefined.

Does it matter if the question HAS a true answer or not? If I asked you 'does chocolate taste good?', is there a right answer? No, not really. But if you were in a room full of people who hated chocolate, I bet the last words out of your mouth would be 'You're all ******** crazy', or something to that effect. Maybe you're half joking, but you're half not. If you THINK you're right, that's all you need. And if you're right and someone else thinks differently, that makes them wrong, QED. There's no two ways about that.

As an example, this very debate. Does it matter? No. Is there a right answer? Probably not. So why are we arguing?

What about people like me?

Personally, I accept the likelyhood that I'm wrong in my beliefs. I even admit that I more likely "wrong", than "right". So when someone tells me I'm wrong, I tell them "You hope."

So...where does that put me?

A step above the norm? It's possible to overcome human nature, but not many people bother to. That's why we have war.  

[black_wing_angel]

Fresnel

black_wing_angel

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Hahaha, you bring your logic into a debate about human behavior...

Okay, then. I want you on the offensive.
Explain to me how asking an unanswerable question - meaning one without a right or wrong side - will render either side correct, thus allowing them to achieve that sense of rightness. Go ahead.

I'm not asking about how it makes some people "feel." This isn't about feelings. I'm asking how it's logically a reasonable approach to achieve some degree of knowledgeable or moral gain.

See, here's the thing - one can only achieve a legitimate degree of rightness if one is actually correct. But there is no known/applicable side to this issue, therefore such a thing does not exist. You cannot be applicably right when the right answer or belief is undefined.

Does it matter if the question HAS a true answer or not? If I asked you 'does chocolate taste good?', is there a right answer? No, not really. But if you were in a room full of people who hated chocolate, I bet the last words out of your mouth would be 'You're all ******** crazy', or something to that effect. Maybe you're half joking, but you're half not. If you THINK you're right, that's all you need. And if you're right and someone else thinks differently, that makes them wrong, QED. There's no two ways about that.

As an example, this very debate. Does it matter? No. Is there a right answer? Probably not. So why are we arguing?

What about people like me?

Personally, I accept the likelyhood that I'm wrong in my beliefs. I even admit that I more likely "wrong", than "right". So when someone tells me I'm wrong, I tell them "You hope."

So...where does that put me?

A step above the norm? It's possible to overcome human nature, but not many people bother to. That's why we have war.

Verry true.  

[Kuchen Fairy]

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Why bother? Because WE HAVE TO BE RIGHT. If we can't prove it on logic, we'll use subtle trickery and brute force to get you to change your mind.

Again, it doesn't matter. We never will be right - at least not will full knowledge that we are. We can say we "have to be right" but that means absolutely nothing. Being militant about your beliefs annoys people more than it convinces them anyway.

Hahaha, you bring your logic into a debate about human behavior...

Okay, then. I want you on the offensive.
Explain to me how asking an unanswerable question - meaning one without a right or wrong side - will render either side correct, thus allowing them to achieve that sense of rightness. Go ahead.

I'm not asking about how it makes some people "feel." This isn't about feelings. I'm asking how it's logically a reasonable approach to achieve some degree of knowledgeable or moral gain.

See, here's the thing - one can only achieve a legitimate degree of rightness if one is actually correct. But there is no known/applicable side to this issue, therefore such a thing does not exist. You cannot be applicably right when the right answer or belief is undefined.

Does it matter if the question HAS a true answer or not? If I asked you 'does chocolate taste good?', is there a right answer? No, not really. But if you were in a room full of people who hated chocolate, I bet the last words out of your mouth would be 'You're all ******** crazy', or something to that effect. Maybe you're half joking, but you're half not. If you THINK you're right, that's all you need. And if you're right and someone else thinks differently, that makes them wrong, QED. There's no two ways about that.

As an example, this very debate. Does it matter? No. Is there a right answer? Probably not. So why are we arguing?

Because it's philosophical. Nobody has to be "right" for anything to be achieved in such a debate. The God debate is fruitless; it's like abortion. Such topics are things people are extremely stubborn about.
In any case, you specifically stated that people "have to be right." Okay, now fit that into this debate. Do they have to be right, or do they have to feel right? They are two different things and I'm just going to assume you meant the latter, considering, once again, the former is not applicable.  

[Fresnel]

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Why bother? Because WE HAVE TO BE RIGHT. If we can't prove it on logic, we'll use subtle trickery and brute force to get you to change your mind.

Again, it doesn't matter. We never will be right - at least not will full knowledge that we are. We can say we "have to be right" but that means absolutely nothing. Being militant about your beliefs annoys people more than it convinces them anyway.

Hahaha, you bring your logic into a debate about human behavior...

Okay, then. I want you on the offensive.
Explain to me how asking an unanswerable question - meaning one without a right or wrong side - will render either side correct, thus allowing them to achieve that sense of rightness. Go ahead.

I'm not asking about how it makes some people "feel." This isn't about feelings. I'm asking how it's logically a reasonable approach to achieve some degree of knowledgeable or moral gain.

See, here's the thing - one can only achieve a legitimate degree of rightness if one is actually correct. But there is no known/applicable side to this issue, therefore such a thing does not exist. You cannot be applicably right when the right answer or belief is undefined.

Does it matter if the question HAS a true answer or not? If I asked you 'does chocolate taste good?', is there a right answer? No, not really. But if you were in a room full of people who hated chocolate, I bet the last words out of your mouth would be 'You're all ******** crazy', or something to that effect. Maybe you're half joking, but you're half not. If you THINK you're right, that's all you need. And if you're right and someone else thinks differently, that makes them wrong, QED. There's no two ways about that.

As an example, this very debate. Does it matter? No. Is there a right answer? Probably not. So why are we arguing?

Because it's philosophical. Nobody has to be "right" for anything to be achieved in such a debate. The God debate is fruitless; it's like abortion. Such topics are things people are extremely stubborn about.
In any case, you specifically stated that people "have to be right." Okay, now fit that into this debate. Do they have to be right, or do they have to feel right? They are two different things and I'm just going to assume you meant the latter, considering, once again, the former is not applicable.

Feel right. But if you're in a philosophical debate and nobody disagrees with you, doesn't that make you right?  

[Kuchen Fairy]

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Hahaha, you bring your logic into a debate about human behavior...

Okay, then. I want you on the offensive.
Explain to me how asking an unanswerable question - meaning one without a right or wrong side - will render either side correct, thus allowing them to achieve that sense of rightness. Go ahead.

I'm not asking about how it makes some people "feel." This isn't about feelings. I'm asking how it's logically a reasonable approach to achieve some degree of knowledgeable or moral gain.

See, here's the thing - one can only achieve a legitimate degree of rightness if one is actually correct. But there is no known/applicable side to this issue, therefore such a thing does not exist. You cannot be applicably right when the right answer or belief is undefined.

Does it matter if the question HAS a true answer or not? If I asked you 'does chocolate taste good?', is there a right answer? No, not really. But if you were in a room full of people who hated chocolate, I bet the last words out of your mouth would be 'You're all ******** crazy', or something to that effect. Maybe you're half joking, but you're half not. If you THINK you're right, that's all you need. And if you're right and someone else thinks differently, that makes them wrong, QED. There's no two ways about that.

As an example, this very debate. Does it matter? No. Is there a right answer? Probably not. So why are we arguing?

Because it's philosophical. Nobody has to be "right" for anything to be achieved in such a debate. The God debate is fruitless; it's like abortion. Such topics are things people are extremely stubborn about.
In any case, you specifically stated that people "have to be right." Okay, now fit that into this debate. Do they have to be right, or do they have to feel right? They are two different things and I'm just going to assume you meant the latter, considering, once again, the former is not applicable.

Feel right. But if you're in a philosophical debate and nobody disagrees with you, doesn't that make you right?

lmao. Westboro church. They all think "fags go to hell." If none disagree within their community, does that make them right?  

[black_wing_angel]

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Hahaha, you bring your logic into a debate about human behavior...

Okay, then. I want you on the offensive.
Explain to me how asking an unanswerable question - meaning one without a right or wrong side - will render either side correct, thus allowing them to achieve that sense of rightness. Go ahead.

I'm not asking about how it makes some people "feel." This isn't about feelings. I'm asking how it's logically a reasonable approach to achieve some degree of knowledgeable or moral gain.

See, here's the thing - one can only achieve a legitimate degree of rightness if one is actually correct. But there is no known/applicable side to this issue, therefore such a thing does not exist. You cannot be applicably right when the right answer or belief is undefined.

Does it matter if the question HAS a true answer or not? If I asked you 'does chocolate taste good?', is there a right answer? No, not really. But if you were in a room full of people who hated chocolate, I bet the last words out of your mouth would be 'You're all ******** crazy', or something to that effect. Maybe you're half joking, but you're half not. If you THINK you're right, that's all you need. And if you're right and someone else thinks differently, that makes them wrong, QED. There's no two ways about that.

As an example, this very debate. Does it matter? No. Is there a right answer? Probably not. So why are we arguing?

Because it's philosophical. Nobody has to be "right" for anything to be achieved in such a debate. The God debate is fruitless; it's like abortion. Such topics are things people are extremely stubborn about.
In any case, you specifically stated that people "have to be right." Okay, now fit that into this debate. Do they have to be right, or do they have to feel right? They are two different things and I'm just going to assume you meant the latter, considering, once again, the former is not applicable.

Feel right. But if you're in a philosophical debate and nobody disagrees with you, doesn't that make you right?

lmao. Westboro church. They all think "fags go to hell." If none disagree within their community, does that make them right?

In a debate standpoint, yes.

But I do get what you're saying.  

[Fresnel]

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Hahaha, you bring your logic into a debate about human behavior...

Okay, then. I want you on the offensive.
Explain to me how asking an unanswerable question - meaning one without a right or wrong side - will render either side correct, thus allowing them to achieve that sense of rightness. Go ahead.

I'm not asking about how it makes some people "feel." This isn't about feelings. I'm asking how it's logically a reasonable approach to achieve some degree of knowledgeable or moral gain.

See, here's the thing - one can only achieve a legitimate degree of rightness if one is actually correct. But there is no known/applicable side to this issue, therefore such a thing does not exist. You cannot be applicably right when the right answer or belief is undefined.

Does it matter if the question HAS a true answer or not? If I asked you 'does chocolate taste good?', is there a right answer? No, not really. But if you were in a room full of people who hated chocolate, I bet the last words out of your mouth would be 'You're all ******** crazy', or something to that effect. Maybe you're half joking, but you're half not. If you THINK you're right, that's all you need. And if you're right and someone else thinks differently, that makes them wrong, QED. There's no two ways about that.

As an example, this very debate. Does it matter? No. Is there a right answer? Probably not. So why are we arguing?

Because it's philosophical. Nobody has to be "right" for anything to be achieved in such a debate. The God debate is fruitless; it's like abortion. Such topics are things people are extremely stubborn about.
In any case, you specifically stated that people "have to be right." Okay, now fit that into this debate. Do they have to be right, or do they have to feel right? They are two different things and I'm just going to assume you meant the latter, considering, once again, the former is not applicable.

Feel right. But if you're in a philosophical debate and nobody disagrees with you, doesn't that make you right?

lmao. Westboro church. They all think "fags go to hell." If none disagree within their community, does that make them right?

Assuming hell does exist and 'everyone' includes God, yes.  

[Vornesoul]

Interesting thread going here, I see. Well, let me try to spin the wheels some more?

Letter A: Why is the existence of God important? Well, that's situational, I suppose. If it was a deistic God, who simply created the universe and left, it really wouldn't matter what we knew or supposed we knew about him. If you claim that he is backing everything you say and do however, he becomes extremely important for he is giving you the right to do as you claim.

It's all dependent on the definition of God in the situation and how he is being used. If two casual Atheists meet, is the existence of God important? No. How about a casual atheist and a casual theist? Well, it would depend on if the belief of the existence of God was an important point in the theists decision making process (Note: I'm not saying that this is an immoral or negative thing, I'm just making a note of it's important to such a person)

How about a militant Atheist and a Militant theist? Then it becomes extremely important, for they could be using their belief or lack of belief to excuse terrible things. If a debate is needed to divert them from doing such things, then that debate should take place.

The reason that Science comes into conflict with Religion is due to the points of the system that it disproves and the way that the religious deals with such things. Creationists are a good example of this. While it is not the goal of science to disprove religion, the facts and theories that science realizes comes into conflict with literal interpretations of the Bible.

It is correct when said that science is not a philosophy and the scientific method is a tool. However, just because one does not directly address the other does not mean that they do not effect the other.

A sentence in the OPs quotation that did bug me was "Which leads me to my point: if there is anything science is not, it is a pursuit of truth.". I disagree with this. Science is a pursuit of truth within our reality. It will never claim to be truth and those who claim that it is truth are both incorrect and doing it a disservice. I trust more in those who pursue the truth, even if they will never find it, then those who claim to have the truth.

Letter B: Yes, it does interfere with the law. I wonder when we will get a publicly agnostic or atheist president of the United States of America. The issue I draw in regards to religion that interferes with the law is where the religion does not allow itself to be scrutinized or criticized. Where it has declared itself right, just, truth and the authority of all things. I do not trust any such people and would not wish for them to be laying the law for me.

This is an inherent problem with faith and dogma. Faith is belief without any empirical evidence. Dogma lays down the law from thousands of years ago. This means that it is extremely hard to convince you of anything that isn't the first thing you faithfully believed. This becomes a problem when the first thing you were told is that homosexuals are worthless sinners that must be abolished. Without a standard of evidence and when you do not allow criticism, such beliefs will continue on and on. I don't want such people laying down the law for me.

Thus, I reiterate, the reason I allow the government to lay the law and not a dogmatic religion is because the government has allowed itself (assuming we are not talking about fascist government) to be critized and judged by its people. Here in a democracy, we have the power to change those rules and laws.

Letter C: If religion was out of the picture, the world would be a better place. Most likely not, it's true. If we took some of the dogma out of the picture or didn't allow the teaching of it as the absolute literal truth. Let 'holy' things be critized and judged. I would think that world a better place.

Writers notes: First, I'm quite tired at the moment so excuse any rambling points or nonsensical ones.

Also, on the topic of why we debate it so much... We are curious people, we love questions and talking. We will talk about anything and everything with feeling. Personally, I love to debate even when I am proved wrong. I love to talk and propose. I don't think questioning the belief of oneself or others is a bad thing. I don't belief there are things we "shouldn't talk about" expectantly for the awful reason of "They are just opinions, and they should all be respected".

I don't walk away from or see most causal debates as flame wars full of anger and spite. I, personally, have fun. That's why I am on an open forum. To talk, to discuss, to be proven right, to be proven wrong, to ask questions, to find answers, to find knowledge and wisdom and...

Best of all, to simply discuss, even if no conclusion is reached. Language, is a beautiful thing.