Christians: why blame atheists for not “choosing” to believe in god?

[laffy_taffy]

Christians:

Why do so many of you blame atheists for not “choosing” to believe in god (or "choosing" to not believe in god)? We have not made that choice.

How does one just “choose” to believe in god, if they have not been convinced that “he” exists?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence if they are to be believed.

1)For example, if you read in a biography that Abraham Lincoln ate an apple everyday for breakfast, you probably would not even question this and would accept the claim.. People eat apples every day, so it is no skin off your nose to believe that Lincoln ate apples for breakfast. Sure this could be a false claim, but it is not unreasonable to believe it

2)Now, what about the story of Lincoln being shot by John Wilkes Booth? Sure, that could be a made-up legend, but we do have evidence that he died and we know that humans who are shot, often die, so it is not unreasonable to believe this.

3)Now, what if people claimed that Lincoln died but came back to life inhabiting the body of his successor in order to finish out his term? Is it reasonable to believe that humans come back to life and then inhabit another person's body? Not without extraordinary evidence.

Claims #1 and #2 may very well be false, but they are not extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence to believe. However, claim #3 would require extraordinary evidence to be believed.
​

With that being said, how does one “choose” to believe extraordinary claims without something that convinces them of the claim’s truth? Without some kind of convincing proof or experience, how is an atheist expected to believe in god? My beliefs are arrived at based on something convincing me of its truth. I cannot just choose to believe out of the blue. Nothing has convinced me yet of god's existence, so I do not currently believe. It doesn’t matter if I “want” to believe in god (which I do), because my beliefs aren’t arrived at based on what I “want” to believe in. Heck, there are some things that I believe in that I would rather not believe, but have no choice based on the overwhelming evidence.

Let’s take the following scenario as an example:

Would you "choose" to believe your son is a murderer?

Let's say your son (hypothetical) got arrested for murder (1st degree). You've raised him as loving, moral, son for over 20 years and he's never hurt a flea.

Would you "choose" to believe that he was a murderer at this point? (Probably not, since it goes against everything you know about your son.....how kind, gentle, and upstanding he is.)

Now let's say that you are exposed to the damning evidence, your spouse witnessed the murder, and your son did not deny it. There is no mistake in this case that he committed premeditated murder. Would you now "choose" to believe your son was a murderer?

If you are a loving parent who has over 20 years of experience with your son, and know that he has been a good kid all of these years.....why would you "choose" to believe he was a murderer?

On the other hand, if you "choose" to believe he is innocent........why?
​

 

[Riverwolf]

... You're new here, aren't you?

Most Christians on this forum accept that there are many people who believe differently than them, and I've seen here Christians and atheists having very friendly conversations and very civil debates with each other.

So... welcome!

 

[laffy_taffy]

... You're new here, aren't you?

Most Christians on this forum accept that there are many people who believe differently than them, and I've seen here Christians and atheists having very friendly conversations and very civil debates with each other.

So... welcome!

Thanks Riverwolf!

 

[CarlinKnew]

Moreover, why worship a supposed god who punishes (or withholds reward from) atheists for not “choosing” to believe in god?

 

[Katzpur]

Christians:

Why do so many of you blame atheists for not “choosing” to believe in god (or "choosing" to not believe in god)? We have not made that choice.

I know a lot of Christians who are guilty as charged. I know a lot of others (including myself) who have never blamed anyone for believing as they please.

How does one just “choose” to believe in god, if they have not been convinced that “he” exists?

Personally, I don't believe I actually chose to believe in God any more than you chose not to. I did choose my religion, but my belief in God was something that just seemed to be a natural part of my outlook from a very early age.

Without some kind of convincing proof or experience, how is an atheist expected to believe in god? My beliefs are arrived at based on something convincing me of its truth.

I cannot just choose to believe out of the blue. Nothing has convinced me yet of god's existence, so I do not currently believe. It doesn’t matter if I “want” to believe in god (which I do), because my beliefs aren’t arrived at based on what I “want” to believe in. Heck, there are some things that I believe in that I would rather not believe, but have no choice based on the overwhelming evidence.

Okay, I see what you're saying, but maybe your could explain what overwhelming evidence you have found that God doesn't exist. (Don't expect to convince me, and don't bother trying. I'll offer you the same courtesy, and maybe we can be friends in spite of our difference of opinion. )

 

[Dunemeister]

Christians:

Why do so many of you blame atheists for not “choosing” to believe in god (or "choosing" to not believe in god)? We have not made that choice.

How does one just “choose” to believe in god, if they have not been convinced that “he” exists?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence if they are to be believed.

I suppose it may be because many theists (I don't limit this to "Christians" despite the OP title because this thread is in the General Debates forum) hold that the evidence in favor of theism is extraordinary, skeptics' protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. Unbelief would then be explained in terms of wilful disbelief or self-deception or some other cognitively crippling deficiency.

 

[knockknock]

Personally, I don't believe I actually chose to believe in God any more than you chose not to. I did choose my religion, but my belief in God was something that just seemed to be a natural part of my outlook from a very early age.

Ditto

 

[knockknock]

It doesn’t matter if I “want” to believe in god (which I do), because my beliefs aren’t arrived at based on what I “want” to believe in.

Maybe you just need to change your perspective, with an open mind and heart you could find enough evidence to support a belief in God.

Peace

 

[laffy_taffy]

I know a lot of Christians who are guilty as charged. I know a lot of others (including myself) who have never blamed anyone for believing as they please. [/font][/color]

Personally, I don't believe I actually chose to believe in God any more than you chose not to. I did choose my religion, but my belief in God was something that just seemed to be a natural part of my outlook from a very early age.

Okay, I see what you're saying, but maybe your could explain what overwhelming evidence you have found that God doesn't exist. (Don't expect to convince me, and don't bother trying. I'll offer you the same courtesy, and maybe we can be friends in spite of our difference of opinion. )

Why would I waste my time trying to prove something doesn't exist? As an atheist, I'm not claiming that god doesn't in fact exist anyway. For all I know, there could be hundreds of gods out there. I just have not been presented with any evidence/proof which has convinced me to believe in any god in the first place.

Likewise, I do not believe that "there are no gods" because of the lack of sufficient evidence to convince me that there is not some deistic god out there somewhere. Not having a belief in god makes me an atheist. It doesn't matter whether I believe gods could be possible, etc, I do not currently have a belief! (BTW, I am agnostic when it comes to knowledge about god, but in regards to belief.....you only have 2 choices: belief or no belief, and I have no belief).

 

[Riverwolf]

Maybe you just need to change your perspective, with an open mind and heart you could find enough evidence to support a belief in God.

Peace

Before accusing people of not having an opened mind for not believing in God, please watch and contemplate this video:

YouTube - Open-mindedness

 

[zenzero]

Friend laffy_taffy,
Welcome to RF!
Bes tWishes.
Love & rgds

 

[laffy_taffy]

Friend laffy_taffy,
Welcome to RF!
Bes tWishes.
Love & rgds

Thanks! I think I'll "camp" here for a while!


:grill:

 

[knockknock]

Before accusing people of not having an opened mind for not believing in God, please watch and contemplate this video:

Hey, I wasn't accusing you of being closed minded, I was suggesting that if you 'want' to believe in God as you stated, then open your mind to the possibility, there's a difference. If you're hellbent on not believeing in God then stick to your guns - your choice

 

[Dunemeister]

Why would I waste my time trying to prove something doesn't exist? As an atheist, I'm not claiming that god doesn't in fact exist anyway. For all I know, there could be hundreds of gods out there. I just have not been presented with any evidence/proof which has convinced me to believe in any god in the first place.

Because it's the intellectually responsible thing to do (if you care about such things). Atheism is an breathtakingly bold claim. Agnosticism is somewhat more modest, but agnostics tend to be patronizing (they're all stupid but me).

Likewise, I do not believe that "there are no gods" because of the lack of sufficient evidence to convince me that there is not some deistic god out there somewhere. Not having a belief in god makes me an atheist. It doesn't matter whether I believe gods could be possible, etc, I do not currently have a belief! (BTW, I am agnostic when it comes to knowledge about god, but in regards to belief.....you only have 2 choices: belief or no belief, and I have no belief).

This is as incoherent a paragraph as I've ever read.

 

[laffy_taffy]

Hey, I wasn't accusing you of being closed minded, I was suggesting that if you 'want' to believe in God as you stated, then open your mind to the possibility, there's a difference. If you're hellbent on not believeing in God then stick to your guns - your choice

I think you might have me (the op) confused with Riverwolf.

 

[knockknock]

I think you might have me (the op) confused with Riverwolf.

Sorry Taffy, your quite right, that reply was to riverwolf. Hi by the way

 

[laffy_taffy]

[/font][/color][/size]

Because it's the intellectually responsible thing to do (if you care about such things). Atheism is an breathtakingly bold claim. Agnosticism is somewhat more modest, but agnostics tend to be patronizing (they're all stupid but me).

What are you suggesting that I am claiming? I have no belief in god. Where is the claim here? As I have already stated, my lack of belief in god/s does not mean that I therefore believe that gods do not in fact exist.

This is as incoherent a paragraph as I've ever read.

It sounds like you might not be familiar with the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

This response to the question might clear it up a little:

Question:
​

If atheism is just disbelief in gods, then what is the difference between that and agnosticism?

Response:
Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist — there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more “reasonable” position while atheism is more “dogmatic,” ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. Is this a valid position to take?


Unfortunately, no — agnostics may sincerely believe it and theists may sincerely reinforce it, but it relies upon more than one misunderstanding about both atheism and agnosticism. These misunderstandings are only exacerbated by continual social pressure and prejudice against atheism and atheists. People who are unafraid of stating that they indeed do not believe in any gods are still despised in many places, whereas “agnostic” is perceived as more respectable.

Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure. This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure — in other words, they may be an agnostic as well.

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.
Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.

It is also worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is “better” than atheism because it is less dogmatic. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists. On the other hand, if theism can be open-minded then so can atheism.
In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn’t faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist.

(I would have posted the link instead, but I don't have enough posts yet to post hyperlinks).
​

 

[Riverwolf]

Hey, I wasn't accusing you of being closed minded, I was suggesting that if you 'want' to believe in God as you stated, then open your mind to the possibility, there's a difference. If you're hellbent on not believeing in God then stick to your guns - your choice

By telling someone to "open their mind," you are implying that they have a closed mind, even if that isn't your intention.

And there are as many non-believers who carry guns as there are believers, and I believe guns are barbaric.

And I wasn't defending myself; I was defending laffy_taffy. I already believe in "God," though I suspect my view of God is very different than yours.

 

[Riverwolf]

Likewise, I do not believe that "there are no gods" because of the lack of sufficient evidence to convince me that there is not some deistic god out there somewhere. Not having a belief in god makes me an atheist. It doesn't matter whether I believe gods could be possible, etc, I do not currently have a belief! (BTW, I am agnostic when it comes to knowledge about god, but in regards to belief.....you only have 2 choices: belief or no belief, and I have no belief).

This is as incoherent a paragraph as I've ever read.

I don't know. Despite some grammatical problems, of which nearly all of us are guilty of, anyway, it makes perfect sense to me.

All he's saying is: the statement, "I don't believe in God," is NOT the same as saying, "God does not and cannot exist."

 

[laffy_taffy]

Maybe you just need to change your perspective, with an open mind and heart you could find enough evidence to support a belief in God.

Peace

Hi Knockknock! I am always open to a personal revelation/experience of god, Jesus, Allah, Brahma, whatever god might be out there. As for a deistic god, I don't exactly know how I would find evidence of one that does not interact with its' creation.

Regardless, religious texts written by men are a dime a dozen. They don't prove one god over any other god. So, I wouldn't base my belief on such a thing. How would you know which "holy text" was true if you didn't have some other kind of proof of that particular god? It would not be fair to discount a god based on these texts alone, would it? If I were to have an actual experience or something (anything!) that would let me know a god existed (and which god!), then I could at least say I have knowledge of god. At that point I could choose to accept/reject him.