What is the point? — SteveMinjares

1. Knowledge, that is forming justified true beliefs on the the existence or non-existence of God in the theis sense of the word.
2. Religions give lots of rules to follow, if God doesn't exist then these rules are unjustified, so knowing whether or not God exists is important for ethics.

You shouldn’t care what others think and believe. — SteveMinjares

1. So if someone believes that we should exterminate a certain ethnic group we shouldn't care about their beliefs ?
2. Why shouldn't we care ?

To me asking why we believe is insinuating that you have doubts about your own convictions and are considering other faith or ideals — SteveMinjares

1. Assuming that this is true, then that would mean that we are open-minded, which apparently is something you value deeply.
2. Why do you think so ?

So why ask the question, if you don’t care? — SteveMinjares

If we didn't care, we wouldn't ask the question. But we do care.

I am a Christian cause it bring me joy and happiness — SteveMinjares

1. What is your definition of joy ? And happiness ?
2. Why does it bring you joy and happiness ?
3. So if someone's belief that all theists are simple-minded and dumb brings them joy and happiness, does that justify his belief ?

Happiness shouldn’t be rationalized — SteveMinjares

1. What do you mean by rationalized ?
2. So we shouldn't try to rationalize the happiness a serial killer feels when killing his victims.
3. Why shouldn't we ?

Is a belief that I follow that release me from my anxiety and depression, it brings positive thinking and optimists to my life — SteveMinjares

Yeah. So ?

What is so irrational about pursuing happiness? Why is this concept so hard to understand? — SteveMinjares

I don't know. Do you think happiness is rational ? If so, tell me why.

But don’t pass these philosophical questioning about God as intellectual reasoning you aren’t fooling any one. We all know is a desire to express stereotyping and discriminator thinking. — SteveMinjares

1. What do you mean by stereotyping ? And intellectual reasoning ? And discriminatory thinking ?
2. So if a kid questions God's existence he is discriminating and stereotyping ?
3. Why do you think that questionning entails discrimination and stereotyping ?

If believing that the Earth is flat and wearing a aluminum foil hat gives them security and happiness what right do we have to take that way. — SteveMinjares

Absolutely none! The problem is if you claim that the earth is flat you're saying those who believe that it's round are wrong! What a great way to start a conversation!

Second, wear anything you want, aluminium foil hat or the Pope's regalia but don't tell others to do the same. That religious folks try to spread their beliefs not just as an opinion but as the unequivocal truth is what breeds militant atheism which this thread is ultimately evolving into a discussion of.

As long as someone keeps their evidence-free, faith-based, merely private beliefs which makes them happy to themselves, that will make the rest of us happy, and we'll then have a win-win kumbaya shared commons happening. Keep private beliefs without public warrant private; make private assertions public without public warrants disrespects, or assaults, private/public assertions with public warrants; so one ought to avoid doing that. An epistemic imperative (WK Clifford, Peirce, Dewey, et al).

It should be held that all ideas and reasonings should be subject to criticism, as criticism helps to promote critical thinking. Many argue that theism, is outdated and supernatural, thus somewhat of a way to control the populace and demote the idea of critical thinking.

Furthermore, stating that God is real has inherent implications for not just you, but all people, regardless of the context of your belief. This is particularly true in Abrahamic Religions where the Bible explicitly states that non-believers, along with other groups should be 'stoned and put to death.' Along with other dehumanising features.

ThereminTrees on YouTube proposed an excellent thought-experiment relating to this.

Take for example a person stating that their partner/s is beautiful. There is an implied shorthand of 'my partner/s is beautiful (to me).' TherminTrees says that this does not require a response from you, as it doesn't implicate you. Yet, when the question, 'They're beautiful, aren't they?' Is asked, it does require a response as it is directly is relevant to you.

The same reason can be applied to religion, the statement, 'God is real to me.' Is different to 'They're beautiful, to me.' Because whereas the second statement does not impact you, the first one does. This is seen in a variety of real world applications where people whom may or may not believe in a God or Practise the way they have been taught, have become victims of religion. LGBTQIA+, Women, Slaves, Worshippers of other religions among other groups have been victims of religion. This is why some atheists believe the question of God to be important.

Furthermore religion is increasingly being used as a tool to manipulate groups of people into conformity, and several philosophers argue that instead of increasing morals, religion can actually do the opposite, benefiting the rich and powerful.

Also there is the argument that religions indoctrinate children, which is technically true. Children are taught from a very young age that God exist, Is benevolent, and Omnipotent. These are taught even in the public schooling system. It doesn't matter whether God is real or not at this point, it's about whether or not children have the right to be allowed to make an informed decision on the existence of a God.

Finally the idea that Atheists merely ask the question to express stereotyping and discriminatory views is both flawed and hypocritical.

Your argument exists as the following.

• Atheists ask questions, which questions Religion
• Religious people are religious because it makes them happy
• Thus, questioning religion is unnecessary
• Therefore the only reason Atheists are asking this question are because they are discriminatory.

(Please correct me if I am misrepresenting your argument)

This reasoning is flawed because the third premise is incorrect, and the conclusion is only one possible explanation of several, for example.

A asks a question to B, which challenges B's beliefs. B holds their beliefs because it makes them happy, thus A's questioning of B is unnecessary. Thus A is discriminatory towards B.

A asks B, 'Why do you believe vaccination is bad?' To which B responds 'Because it makes me happy.' A then states, 'But there is no scientific evidence to support your claims.' According to your reasoning, A is now being discriminatory.

Note: It doesn't matter whether what B or A is saying is correct in this scenario.

Critical reasoning and questioning of our environment is vital, and without these tools life can become dangerous and we can become easily manipulated. Religion potentially reduces critical thinking, and this is why many atheists can feel the need to question God.

Furthermore, this sounds like an ideology of suppression and dictatorial. Freedom of speech is a vital tenant, an yet in a world where Abrahamic Religions can literally be taught in schools, and in some places become law, speaking out against these religions can be considered as 'discrimination' is absurd. In countries where religion is law and taught in school, (indoctrination essentially) why would questioning that be a problem. Why is it a problem for opening question Christianity and make their views public, when that is precisely what Christianity did, but to a more extreme extent (through colonisation and missionaries.).

Also Atheists do care about the existence of God, otherwise the questioned wouldn't be asked. Philosophy is about understanding everything that around us, and if a God was proven to exist that would have major, major implications on philosophy, so the question of God is vital to all.

Finally your comment on Atheists using the questioning of God as a way to hide discrimination and stereotyping is wrong. Also very hypocritical. Religion is one of the biggest persecutors in the world, and Atheists, particularly those with theistic families, can suffer long-term abuse due to coming out as such. There are so many stories of families being destroyed by atheism and religious people dehumanising atheists, and other groups, like LGBTQIA+ that to blatantly ignore the danger that some people put themselves in by identifying as such is silly.

Also as I've proven above, the question of God has nothing to do with discriminating against religious people, it's about trying to understand the truth of the world around us, because understanding, is greatest way for us to move forward. Sometimes that requires asking difficult questions.

I can agree with most of that, but I think skepticism is more than being open to something being false. I would define it more like assuming something isnt true until there are good reasons to believe it is true. The skeptic says “prove it.”. — DingoJones

What is the benefit or justification for assuming a proposition is false, before it has been proven true or false? Making assumptions goes directly against the spirit of reason. Every mistake in reason amounts to making some assumption. Prove everything, assume nothing. That's the motto of reason .

What is the benefit or justification for assuming a proposition is false — Yohan

Because science discredits the idea of a God, and many take this as the 'proof' in question.

What is the benefit or justification for assuming a proposition is false, before it has been proven true or false? — Yohan

So that you don’t have to waste time on every stupid idea people come up with. Its practical. Its a way of filtering out baseless nonsense.
I used poor phrasing in my last post, its not an assumption but a neutral position moved on only by evidence…or at least a good argument.

faith-base thinkers are stupid people and stero-typing them as low intelligent individuals. — SteveMinjares

They don't use their intellects. They have poor introspective and honesty because they are trying to have faith and this bubbly faith they bring up in themselves colors their ability to think about their arguments objectively.. I look at their arguments on the screen with the sense that "these people are just stupid" and it is not that they were born with low IQ, it is really because they so want to have faith so bad that bad arguments look good to them. It's like a starving person looking at some insect infected food and thinking "this looks delicious". Christian emphasis on faith will alone make their argumentations suspect. Kant was at least honest with all these matters

As long as someone keeps their evidence-free, faith-based, merely private beliefs which makes them happy to themselves, that will make the rest of us happy, and we'll then have a win-win kumbaya shared commons happening. Keep private beliefs without public warrant private; make private assertions public without public warrants disrespects, or assaults, private/public assertions with public warrants; so one ought to avoid doing that. An epistemic imperative (WK Clifford, Peirce, Dewey, et al) — 180 Proof

Good post. Kant, Schelling, Hegel, and Kierkegaard has to sense to know "the doctrines of Christianity have no proof whatsoever for them" but they recognized they had value if people used them to feel good, enjoy the stories, and increase the spiritual and artistic abilities of their minds. IF however people use faith to convinced themselves that bad arguments are good arguments and start an apologetic campaign from this, they have only themselves to blame if their arguments get jumped and beat up