Observation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Simpleton
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Simpleton

Guest
I was wondering what would happen if instead of focusing on what we don’t agree on; we could start by focusing on what we do agree on? Take for example the classic atheist vs. theist threads that center around God’s existence. If we boil both sides down to it we come to two conclusions.

Theists say there is an objective purpose: God
Atheists say there isn’t an objective purpose: God

While both sides oppose each other they also at the same time agree on one key aspect, and that is a God is necessary in order for an objective purpose to exist. So why not try to find evidence of an objective purpose? I mean would we have to look very far to find evidence of one?

The conclusion I have come to is; NO! All you have to do is step back and look at forum itself. Everyone here regardless of race, gender, location, and belief, are here and continue to come here for one objective purpose and that is to discuss God and things that relate to God. Whether it be an atheist professing their disbelief in a God, or a theist professing their belief; they are both in the end united under a common objective purpose and that is; God.

:yeah_me:
 
Simpleton said:
Whether it be an atheist professing their disbelief in a God, or a theist professing their belief; they are both in the end united under a common objective purpose and that is; God.
Click to expand...
It might be a common topic, but it is hardly a common objective purpose. The objective purpose of some is to deny, while the purpose of others is to affirm. The object of this denial or affirmation is the same, but the purpose is completely different.

You mention atheists and Catholics. But this forum has a much wider scope, but the same essential purpose. People come here questioning the Eucharist, or infant Baptism, or the role of the Pope. Some come to deny, and others come to affirm.

I suppose you could claim that the REAL objective purpose is to try to persuade others of a different view that they are wrong and you are right. Hopefully this purpose is motivated by charity - to lead people away from erroneous beliefs. This is, after all, an apologetics forum, and that’s what apologists do.
 
DavidFilmer said:
It might be a common topic, but it is hardly a common objective purpose. The objective purpose of some is to deny, while the purpose of others is to affirm. The object of this denial or affirmation is the same, but the purpose is completely different.

You mention atheists and Catholics. But this forum has a much wider scope, but the same essential purpose. People come here questioning the Eucharist, or infant Baptism, or the role of the Pope. Some come to deny, and others come to affirm.

I suppose you could claim that the REAL objective purpose is to try to persuade others of a different view that they are wrong and you are right. Hopefully this purpose is motivated by charity - to lead people away from erroneous beliefs. This is, after all, an apologetics forum, and that’s what apologists do.
Click to expand...
Thanks David,

I was trying to demonstrate how God is the source of objective purpose.

The theist or believer is here to defend and profess the existence of God, while the atheist is here to challenge, defend, and profess the non-existence of God. Either way God is the source of their objective purpose for why they are here, and since atheists do not believe in an objective purpose the evidence of its existence should show that the theists are correct and that the actions of the atheists are contrary to the reality they profess exists since without a God we would neither have theists or atheists.
 
Simpleton said:
I was wondering what would happen if instead of focusing on what we don’t agree on; we could start by focusing on what we do agree on?

May I ask, to what purpose? When it comes to the existense of God, there is little the atheist and the believer agree on. If I am having a discussion or an argument with an atheist, there seems to be only 2 possible purposes for either side: 1) to convince the other or 2) to come to a better understanding of each other. Both are perfectly fine. But I don’t see how focusing on agreements further either purpose.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top