I wait in anticipation to hear the first person throw this right back into my face.
‘The same reason you argue for atheism!!’
Nature cannot speak out for itself. Observing nature at work is the best answer it can provide for us. And since the early days of humankind we have yet to hear directly from God, that is the best nature can do to prove religion false. This isn’t good enough though. It should be, unfortunately though it isn’t. Religious groups need a definitive yes or no answer before admitting defeat.
The trouble is, how is this possible without a God to answer?
Humans need to fight Gods corner because like nature, God cannot speak for himself. This is down to two potential factors. God not wanting to prove himself even after centuries of conflicts in his name, or because God doesn’t exist.
Therefore, two sad realities need to be addressed by those who worship:
1. Choosing to argue for a God that does not care for our desire of the ultimate answer/s.
2. Choosing to believe in a God that does not exist.
Which sounds better? I honestly cannot tell, can you?
If God does in fact exist, in just a matter of decades we will realise this. We will realise how preposterous we sounded arguing against religion with our newly attained awareness. Begging the question was the short life on Earth worth wasting, by asking questions of our mortality.
Now there is a question…
As a believer- where does the desire to prove your point come from? From my point of view this is the only chance I, or anyone, will get to use this amazing consciousness we possess. To form opinions and conclusions, be curious and adventurous, to learn and teach. After death this golden opportunity ends. So time is very precious. Surely to be confident that there is an eternal afterlife waiting for all of us just around the corner, I’d feel a lot more laid back when debating. If the urge to debate would be present at all.
What motivates a believer to spend precious time arguing in favour of God? It seems to me the desire comes from not actually knowing what will happen. The urge to debate fiercely arising from the prospect of no afterlife at all, even from the most faithful of believers. I would appreciate hearing opinions, this question isn’t rhetorical. This shadow of doubt would explain why so many protest very strongly in favour of religion.
It is no better to argue passionately if the argument is to save atheists from Hell. A brutal deity carrying out or overlooking such punishment should be ridiculed. The mentality of those who are against bloodthirsty practices should not be at the receiving end of such ridicule. If a terror attack is carried out- who is condemned? The attackers, one hundred percent of the time. It is never the victims for failing to submit to a terrorist ideology. God is no exception. The endless ways moderates work around this point to try make out God is not the immoral one needs to stop. Violent preaching does not deserve to be preached. If it’s brutal, let’s take it out of our lives. True or false, getting rid of violence can only be a good thing. Atheism is the moral and logical path to take.