Gary Welsh

Does anybody else ever see the discussion of the existence of God as the most elaborate game in the world? I don't mean to trivialize it by calling it a "game," either. In fact, it is one of the subjects that I have a perpetual interest in. Twenty years ago I was wondering whether God exists, and to this day I still read books and engage in discussions on the existence of God. If I hear others discussing the topic, I am always riveted by the conversation. It is starting to feel like a lifetime hobby. I respect a lot of Christian thinkers, and thinkers from other theist traditions as well, even though I am an atheist. And, I think a lot of them respect me. But sometimes I can't help but view the whole "me versus you" aspect of it as a kind of game.

beoba

I think of it as a circular road. Sure, sometimes there are branches off to the side, but they're all dead ends. You'll end up coming back and continuing your perpetual circle anyway.

Zadok001

The most elaborate game in the world is Magic: The Gathering.

Debating the existance of God is a fair step behind, simply because it's such a repetative endevour - Only so many arguments are used to support the existance of God, most of which are bunk. And so many 'arguments' are just repackaged versions of same ol', same ol'.

Jobar

Back in, mmm, November of 2001, I started a thread called 'Theism, Atheism, and Pro Wrestling' (or something close to that.) It was inspired by a talk I heard at the 2001 Atlanta Conference of CSICOP; the point of my post, and that talk, was similar to what you propose, Gary.

I'm always getting asked why I, an atheist, spend such a huge portion of my time debating the EoG. I have no interest in any traditional sport, dislike talking politics, and am getting too old to spend all my time chasing women; ah, but give me a topic near the intersection of physics, philosophy, and theology, and I'll stay glued to my monitor for hours on end! Is it just an odd hobby, for some of us?

Jobar

Here's that post- CSICOP conference/ pro wrestling

Gary Welsh

Yeah! It's kind of like a hobby. Even when we see where the arguments are heading, and knowing we're not making any headway with a particularly disputant, we stay engaged. I, too, am often asked why I -- as an atheist -- spend so much of my time thinking about and arguing about the existence of God. After all, if my "mind's already made up" then why do I keep discussing it? Well, part of that answer, for me at any rate, is that I am not so supremely arrogant to think that even if my "mind is made up" (and it is), I'm not unwilling to consider that I might be wrong (even if I assess that probability to be hyperbolically small), and look for new and challenging arguments. But as has been said, most of the 'arguments' tend to be the same old ones, or variations on old ones, and often it feels that the adage "there is nothing new under the sun" is quite true, and this is just a big merry-go-round, and an endeavor of philosophically refining one's own sword. Part of it, I guess, is to look at some of the well-expressed answers and points that other atheists make. I always find more humorous, insightful and rhetorically apt answers that I've given on my own.

I suppose if I felt we (atheists) weren't in a minority, or if I didn't feel so much incredulity that more people don't think the way I do, I wouldn't be so engaged in the discussions. But I know we're outnumbered, and skeptical thinking is always under siege, ready to be overwhelmed by pseudoscience, superstition and gullibility at every turn.

Oddly enough, I find many theists to have a very similar, but opposite view. Many of them think their own worldviews, while perhaps not in a minority, are also under a kind of siege, and being in danger of being destroyed or undermined by a groundswell of 'secular' or 'godless' or 'scientific' thinking. So, the more thoughtful of them feel it is their duty to engage in apologetics, and to understand how the "other side" thinks, and so they are drawn to sites like this one.

I often wonder if the differences are primarily of temperament, as William James once suggested. Is it really a clash of intellects, or of temperament? I admit, I am by nature, a skeptic, a questioner, one who does not believe in something unless I am persuaded by hard evidence, and lots of it. I've always been that way. It wasn't studying philosophy that made me that way, either. Philosophy has only refined what was already there.

I've found great thinkers and great opponents on the "other side" to be often in a similar position, but diametrically opposed. They use their study of philosophy and argumentation to support the temperament they have already brought to the table. They are believers, or want to believe. They are by nature, religious in some way, spiritual, open to the possibility of a God, desirous of believing in one, or convicted in the truth of it. And it's not something that for them can easily be pinned down or reduced to one argument. If they find one argument wanting, they move on to another. Or, they go on the attack, and attack atheism as a 'worldview' of its own, defining and re-framing the debate to their own advantage -- a popular tactic of many apologists today.

So, much of the game is identifying these tactics, or even playing the meta-game of assessing the motivations and underlying psychology of the other camp (which is what I'm doing right now).

HaysooChreesto!

Just like some don't like talking politics, I don't really enjoy arguing religion with theists. Once in a while, a theist will post something that bugs me and I'll respond, but usually I just let others decimate them. Besides many here are far, far, far better at it than I.

I think some atheists enjoy it because it can be so easy. Kind of lke shooting ixoye in a barrel. It can be challenging for a while but in the end, the theist argument always ends up face down in the mud with a new hole stomped in it.

Bill Snedden

I've also felt the same way for some time. In fact, I'm currently writing an essay for my web site (and maybe for the Agora?) entitled "Does God exist? Who cares?"

Essentially, I find debates and arguments around God's existence and nature to be intellectually stimulating, but irrelevant to what I consider life's "larger" questions.

How should I live? How can I find meaning in my life? What goals do I want to set for myself? As I see it, God's existence is simply not relevant to answering these questions.

If there is no God, then humans truly must find these answers on their own. If God exists and is truly benevolent and loving, then he desires only our happiness and again the answers are our own. If God exists and is malevolent and evil, then it won't matter either way.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Aethari

I have to second Zadok...M:TG is far more complex

~Aethari

Taffer

Before I started snooping about on the subject of religion, I avidly discussed in video game forums. Dynamics are easy to grasp in such places: There are a few sensible discussions, but they are outdroned by the "fanboys", fanatic zealots who try to justify their purchases in their own eyes by defending it as vigorously as possible (also called "sheeple"). Conflicts between these fanboys were called "flame wars", conflagrations of horrible insults, shrieked accusations and other nasty affairs. Occasional important news would start a wild cycle of rumours and new flame wars, so the whole thing was rather like a rabid dog chasing it's own tail.

When I started on religion searching, I predicted well thought-out debates and a healthy sense of mutual respect in the fora. I wanted to see stuff you'd expect from composed, middle-aged men with small reading glasses who sit in comfy library chairs smoking pipes, offering their opinions and just looking generally intellectual.

Instead, my immediate reaction was "Holy sh*t, this is exactly the same thing."

Man, am I glad I found the II.