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

[Riverwolf]

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.

Have you heard the parable of the blind men and the elephant?

 

[laffy_taffy]

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."

Precisely! Key word here: "precise"! :clap

 

[laffy_taffy]

Have you heard the parable of the blind men and the elephant?

Yes, but if some of the gods that people believe in are creator gods, and some are not....... are they "really" the same god?

 

[Dunemeister]

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

I'm quite familiar.

 

[laffy_taffy]

I'm quite familiar.

I'm sorry. I must have interpreted your post incorrectly. I thought that when you posted that "Atheism is an breathtakingly bold claim. Agnosticism is somewhat more modest", that you were basically comparing both atheism and agnosticism as just different level/degrees of belief, rather than 2 different ideas altogether (knowledge vs. belief). Maybe you can help me out and put it in simpler terms for me (my brain is tired tonight).

 

[fantome profane]

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

You could still have mentioned the name of the site you got this from, or mentioned the name of the author. Here is the link.
Atheism vs. Agnosticism What's the Difference? Are they Alternatives to Each Other? By Austin Cline, About.com



But other than that, good post and welcome to the board.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes, but if some gods are creator gods and some are not, are they "really" the same god?

Sort of.

In my opinion, we are all part of God, though we do not make up all of God.

 

[laffy_taffy]

Sort of.

In my opinion, we are all part of God, though we do not make up all of God.

Got no problem with that. I was just thinking of an example, though, of Jains who believe in gods but believe that the universe is eternal (not created by god). Now, compare that to those who worship the creator god Jehovah for example. Could these in any way be the same "god(s)"?

 

[laffy_taffy]

You could still have mentioned the name of the site you got this from, or mentioned the name of the author. Here is the link.



But other than that, good post and welcome to the board.

Thanks for the link and the welcome!:foryou:


(I had to delete your link just to reply to your post)

 

[fantome profane]

(I had to delete your link just to reply to your post)

Lol, hang in there, it won’t take long.

 

[Riverwolf]

Got no problem with that. I was just thinking of an example, though, of Jains who believe in gods but believe that the universe is eternal (not created by god). Now, compare that to those who worship the creator god Jehovah for example. Could these in any way be the same "god(s)"?

(Jehovah is actually a mistranslation. While valid, it's supposed to be YHWH. ^_^)

Yes, they can be. Those are different ways of looking at the same God.

Here's the thing; I believe that none of us can know any real details about God, as God is the pinnacle of abstracts. Any specific stories, characteristics, etc. about God are simply interpretations. Valid, yes, but nonetheless, interpretations.

 

[cottage]

[/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).



It is not an intellectually responsible thing to do. Attempting to prove the non-existence of something is an absurd notion.

 

[knockknock]

Hi Taffy, I don’t base my belief on religious texts either, as I said to before, I always had a belief in God from since I can remember, though this wasn’t impregnated into me as my family is not religious. The reason I said to try to open your mind to the possibility is because it appeared to me when reading your initial question that you were trying too hard to find intellectual reason to not believe in God – though this was only gleaned from the little information I had about you.

I have found in my life that it is far easier, in this present climate, to not believe in the Christian God than it is to keep my faith. The world seems to go out of its way to want to trash my belief, even teaching evolution in schools as though it were a done deal! It is far more P.C. these days to be agnostic, even atheist. Or, in fact, the revival of ‘Hindu’ religions seems to be becoming more palatable, with a mish mash of prominent characters from other religions brought into the mix. I have studied all of this, including the doctrines of all other major religions. However, the Christian belief that I have is the one that I always seem to return to, and my belief may not be identical to what you see as, say, a catholic faith, it is a bare bones, simplistic faith without all of the dogma that the many different sects want you to buy into.

You see it really does make sense to me – atheism doesn’t, it’s that simple. The absence of a creator is as ridiculous to me as the presence of a God is to a die hard atheist.

If you haven’t already watched the lectures done by Walter Veith, you may find they give you a different perspective. Though he is a seventh Day Adventist, that was the religion that came knocking on his door and it works for him, don’t let that cloud your judgment and the information he has. He is a professor of zoology and now believes in creation rather than evolution, though this wasn’t always the case as he was atheist and lectured evolution, if nothing else his information is very interesting. I can’t post the link because I haven’t been here long enough, just go to you tube and type in Walter Veith, there are lots of videos. (I'm sure there are plenty here who will knock him but just see for yourself and don't be swayed by de-bunkers.



With good intentions
knock knock.

 

[Dunemeister]

It is not an intellectually responsible thing to do. Attempting to prove the non-existence of something is an absurd notion.

Having reasons for your atheism beyond "well the other side hasn't proven theism" is intellectually responsible. Thus reflective atheists have generally tried to pose positive arguments such as the so-called problem of evil to show that theism is not possible.

On the other hand, there are those who simply take atheism for granted because, so they say, the theist arguments are not very good. The fact that the theistic arguments are not, in a particular atheist's estimation, very good does not underwrite atheism. If you want to justify atheism, you have to do better than that.

 

[knockknock]

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

Not really, its necessary to read the words in the context they were written, after all, laffy taffy got what I meant. I have a feeling you couldn't wait to post that link onto the next person that mentioned a closed or open mind

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

again, metaphorical but I'll go along with it and agree, as any healthy minded person would, that guns are not the answer and one of the greatest evils of all time.

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.

Yes, yes but was that really necessary, it became pretty obvious that I thought I was responding to taffy instead of you. Go on then, what is your view of God, I'm genuinely interested

 

[cottage]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...lame-atheists-not-choosing-4.html#post1587310
It is not an intellectually responsible thing to do. Attempting to prove the non-existence of something is an absurd notion.

Dunemeister: Having reasons for your atheism beyond "well the other side hasn't proven theism" is intellectually responsible.

Cottage: No, it is not! It is absurd. To demand proof for a thing’s non-existence is nonsensical: where might one look for this non-existent thing? How do you suppose one might find this negative evidence when even the believers themselves cannot provide proof for what they claim? If the argument is insisted upon then it may be turned back on the believer: if you believe your god is the only god, then it is incumbent upon you to prove there can be no other gods, which is an equally absurd demand.

Dunemeister: Thus reflective atheists have generally tried to pose positive arguments such as the so-called problem of evil to show that theism is not possible.

Cottage: The PoE does not show that theism is impossible. It demonstrates a logical contradiction, ie that one or more of the premises is false. It does not disprove what may or may not exist anywhere. No existential proposition can follow from logic alone. And it isn’t the ‘so-called' Problem of Evil, but an inconsistent triad, which sets supposed theological claims against the factual existence of evil and suffering.


Dunemeister: On the other hand, there are those who simply take atheism for granted because, so they say, the theist arguments are not very good. The fact that the theistic arguments are not, in a particular atheist's estimation, very good does not underwrite atheism. If you want to justify atheism, you have to do better than that.

Cottage: That is not incorrect. I am a sceptic, an a-theist, which is to say without belief in gods. And it is outrageous to say that poor arguments for a claimed supernatural, faith-based existence must be disproved before an absence of belief in that notion can be justified.

 

[emiliano]

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?
​

I am a Christian that does not blame you (atheists) for not finding God and His Christ, my theory is that God does not want every one in His Kingdom but his elects. You can’t find Him because God has not revealed himself to you and if He doesn’t, it means that He doesn’t want you.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"The absence of a creator is as ridiculous to me as the presence of a God is to a die hard atheist."

But simply making that assumption says NOTHING about this creator. Nor does it in any way support a garden an apple and a talking snake. The Christian jump from "created universe" to original sin and eternal damnation is not simply illogical - it is hubris.

 

[knockknock]

"The absence of a creator is as ridiculous to me as the presence of a God is to a die hard atheist."

But simply making that assumption says NOTHING about this creator. Nor does it in any way support a garden an apple and a talking snake. The Christian jump from "created universe" to original sin and eternal damnation is not simply illogical - it is hubris.

I made that statement to explain why I felt it necessary in the first place to try to understand who God was and the reason and purpose he gave to my life. I had already stated that I have done more than my fair share of looking into religion and spirituality, after extensive searching, the Christian religion answers the questions for me though I don’t pretend to know exactly what God has planned for each man, it’s far more complex than damning every one who doesn’t believe in JC, I believe there is further preaching work to do as regards this. BTW I don’t believe in eternal damnation, only eternal death.

Why is it arrogant to think that God created us for a happy and contented life and will provide that for us once we have discovered how to master the dark and evil side to our nature? It’s not like it’s an offer open only to a select few, its an open invitation.

Also, I fail to see how the Christian religion is more illogical than saying there was a big explosion in the universe which just happened to make a cosmic soup that just happened to create the very precise and mind boggling thing we call life, in all of its uniqueness and glory. That goes way further out there than an apple and a talking snake!!

 

[Riverwolf]

Not really, its necessary to read the words in the context they were written, after all, laffy taffy got what I meant. I have a feeling you couldn't wait to post that link onto the next person that mentioned a closed or open mind

True, that. I love that video to death. But I was also quite serious.

If telling laffy taffy that he has a closed mind wasn't your intention, then maybe it would have been better to use more precise words, so that the rest of us don't get confused.

For example, judging by your post above this one, it seems what you meant to say was closer to "try looking at it from a different perspective." That's quite different from "try opening your mind."

Yes, yes but was that really necessary, it became pretty obvious that I thought I was responding to taffy instead of you. Go on then, what is your view of God, I'm genuinely interested

I was typing my response as laffy taffy was correcting you.

My view of God is similar to that of Vedanta (a school of Sanatana Dharma, aka Hinduism.) God is all things, within and without.