What I find really interesting is how defensive people get when you ask a perfectly normal question.
Every time tags or thaphantum ask a flat out question, they are accused of flaming.
Its quite amusing that the people continue to respond and try to get the threads closed down over and over again. Why respond? If you think the person is a flamer or whatnot or should be banned then just ignore the person's threads.
Why the need to take up arms and defend?
QUOTE(tags @ Apr 25 2007, 10:46 AM) [snapback]1645319[/snapback]
This is not supposed to be offensive in any way shape or form.
My question to the unbelievers here is this;
What motivates you to post your opinions? Why do you care or wish others to know your side?
For me I am motivated by the idea that there is something greater than ourselves that people should at least consider.
I feel that if I was an unbeliever then I could not be bothered to air my views or indeed that anyone needs to or should here them...nothing is really at stake Id think...let them believe whatever stupidity they want I would say.
So I am interested in the motivation behind being an active nonbeliever??
Any thoughts??
What I see you asking here is what motivates the non believer to post their reply. I believe you explain that as a Christian you ARE motivated by the desire to awaken people to the possibility of God and hence a sort of attempt at conversion.
You suggest that since a non believer doesn't believe in God then why not just leave the believer to their "stupidity" (which I took as your impression of the non believer's view of God theory) and go about your business.
Why the need to try to knock down their belief.
If I was responding to a God theory in this manner, it would be because I felt that the believer accepted it as a given that God existed and thus expected the world to operate in response to this.
For example if the believer feels that Homosexuality is a sin and expects the laws to reflect this because "its true" then I'd feel the need to argue that its not true to me and that you are pushing your personal belief into the main consensus when its not about that.
Tyranny of the masses is something that addresses the majority of the people believing that their "IMMORAL" argument is correct because so many other people agree with them.
When you present your view as a non believer you are combating this tyranny.
The more vocal you are about your perspective the more you defeat the idea that the "majority" of the people agree with the immoral view.
Take for example Muslim women who are forced to cover their heads. The majority of the women I have spoken to LIKE to cover their heads. They think it is the right thing to do. But if the laws of the land reflect this as a moral correctness and some women don't agree they tend to be forced to go along with something that is regarded as the "right thing" when from their perspective it is the wrong thing.
So I guess in a message board I would present my views as a sort of practice in honing exactly what my perspective might be.
For example early on I used to state that faith is a coping mechanism of the weak. Or others might argue that religion is brainwashing. Now these two things strike me as a very ignorant perspective. Yet had we not discussed it I would just gone along thinking this.
So for me this is why I post. As far as letting people believe whatever they want, I completely agree with you. I don't understand why non believers attack people for their personal beliefs. You making sweeping statements however, based on those personal views, is worth someone saying something about.
So since you tend to generalize this is probably why you get responses like you do.