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

[knockknock]

Another thing, on the basis of evolution, maybe snakes could once talk but evolved and lost the use of this because all they ever did was lie

 

[Riverwolf]

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!!

Only if you've never heard Bond order his Vodka Martini "shaken, not stirred."

(BTW, the type of fruit is not specified, it is more likely some sort of fig, because apples don't grow in that area. ^_^)

The Big Bang theory is based on the fact that most galaxies appear to be moving away from us at rapid speeds. (Not all of them, mind you; in a couple billion years, the Andromeda Galaxy will collide with our own.)

Thing is, what apparently makes the Big Bang seem far-fetched for you is that you think of life as glorious. But when you recognize that while to us, life is beautiful, but to Gaia(Earth), it's fleeting, and when you recognize that the base components of all things is Stardust(scientific fact), the Big Bang isn't so hard to grasp.

 

[Riverwolf]

Another thing, on the basis of evolution, maybe snakes could once talk but evolved and lost the use of this because all they ever did was lie

Snakes CAN talk. They just talk in their own language of hissing and body language.

 

[Dunemeister]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
It is not an intellectually responsible thing to do. Attempting to prove the non-existence of something is an absurd notion.

Right. So Antony Flew, Kai Nielson, Betrand Russell, David Hume, et al were all engaged in an absurd activity, at least in your vaunted opinion. I see.

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.

First of all, believers do provide evidence. That you find it unconvincing is niether here nor there. What I'm saying is that skepticism easily becomes intellectually lazy. When evidence is presented, no matter the issue, an intellectually lazy person can always beg off believing (or even seriously considering) because the evidence does not prove beyond all doubt the proposition it gives evidence to. Lazy skeptics generally say such things as you do: I have no burden of proof at all. Or they say something related: There is a logical way out of this (no matter how thin), or the evidence doesn't determine the result 100%, so I don't have to believe it. Lazy, lazy, lazy.

If you don't think you're a lazy skeptic, then pony up. This doesn't necessarily mean that you have to prove a thing's non-existence. It might mean providing an account of creation, ethics, or knowledge that makes more sense on atheistic assumptions than on a rival's assumptions. That would constitute a positive argument for atheism without doing what would be truly impossible: proving the nonexistence of gods.

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.

Well, if the PoE demonstrates a logical contradiction, it a forteriori demonstrates that the concept of God that forms its assumptions doesn't exist. Since that concept of God is relevantly similar to many theistic accounts, it's actually pretty devastating if true. A logically absurd thing can't exist by definition. So yes, an existential proposition (or at least a negative one) can follow from a consideration of logic alone. (It's unfortunate for the atheist side that the argument has been basically refuted since the 70s.)

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.

That's not what I said. I've said that refuting positive arguments for theism, on its own, does not underwrite atheism. Atheism is a positive claim about the world. The claim is that the world is a-theist, without a god (it does not mean without a belief in a god).

 

[knockknock]

Thing is, what apparently makes the Big Bang seem far-fetched for you is that you think of life as glorious. But when you recognize that while to us, life is beautiful, but to Gaia(Earth), it's fleeting, and when you recognize that the base components of all things is Stardust(scientific fact), the Big Bang isn't so hard to grasp.

It doesn't really matter what components we are made of, it's the way we are made that creates life, such an elegant and intelligent design - and so the big bang is far harder to explain away than any religion you can name!

 

[knockknock]

(BTW, the type of fruit is not specified, it is more likely some sort of fig, because apples don't grow in that area. ^_^)

Neither does it matter what fruit you choose, it's all FIGurative anyway

 

[laffy_taffy]

Atheism is a positive claim about the world. The claim is that the world is a-theist, without a god (it does not mean without a belief in a god).

What you might be referring to are those individual atheists ("strong" atheists) who may make the claim that god does not in fact exist. This would be above and beyond the basic definition that applies to ALL atheists which is having no belief in god. Would I assume that you believe in reincarnation since you are a theist (and other theists believe in this?). Atheism is just a label to describe those who have no belief in god, just like theism is a word to describe those who do (with some exceptions).

For example, let's take the following claims:

Claim A: God exists

Claim B: God does not exist.

Both claims imply "knowledge" rather than belief.

I do not accept either claim until I am provided with sufficient evidence to believe them. My non-acceptance (non-belief) in Claim A makes me by definition, an atheist. My non-acceptance (non-belief) in Claim B still leaves me an atheist since I still do not actively believe in any particular god, but I am an agnostic atheist in that I do not believe we can have "knowledge" of god to claim the positive position that god does not exist. I also do not believe Claim B, because I believe that gods such as a deistic god, are possible, but I just have not yet come across any evidence which has convinced me to believe.

 

[Riverwolf]

It doesn't really matter what components we are made of, it's the way we are made that creates life, such an elegant and intelligent design - and so the big bang is far harder to explain away than any religion you can name!

"Harder to explain" doesn't mean "not as likely."

From what little I know of the Big Bang theory (it's a very complex theory full of mathematical and scientific jargon), plus what I know about the world, it makes perfect sense. It IS just a theory, and could be wrong. Scientists know this. But it's good based on what we currently can observe.

 

[emiliano]

What you might be referring to are those individual atheists ("strong" atheists) who may make the claim that god does not in fact exist. This would be above and beyond the basic definition that applies to ALL atheists which is having no belief in god. Would I assume that you believe in reincarnation since you are a theist (and other theists believe in this?). Atheism is just a label to describe those who have no belief in god, just like theism is a word to describe those who do (with some exceptions).

For example, let's take the following claims:

Claim A: God exists

Claim B: God does not exist.

Both claims imply "knowledge" rather than belief.

I do not accept either claim until I am provided with sufficient evidence to believe them. My non-acceptance (non-belief) in Claim A makes me by definition, an atheist. My non-acceptance (non-belief) in Claim B still leaves me an atheist since I still do not actively believe in any particular god, but I am an agnostic atheist in that I do not believe we can have "knowledge" of god to claim the positive position that god does not exist. I also do not believe Claim B, because I believe that gods such as a deistic god, are possible, but I just have not yet come across any evidence which has convinced me to believe.

As far as Christianity goes I can tell you that God is not the God of every Tom. Dick and Harry that ever lived (you can check that in the Bible) and that also implies that not all human will get to know His existence, when you set out to acquired the knowledge of his existence (you said that you tried several religions). What was your purpose? Who did you expected provide you with the evidences of His existence? IMO you were looking for a religion which is a different thing than seeking God. Do you pray? What do you ask for in prayers?

 

[Dunemeister]

What you might be referring to are those individual atheists ("strong" atheists) who may make the claim that god does not in fact exist. This would be above and beyond the basic definition that applies to ALL atheists which is having no belief in god. Would I assume that you believe in reincarnation since you are a theist (and other theists believe in this?). Atheism is just a label to describe those who have no belief in god, just like theism is a word to describe those who do (with some exceptions).

For example, let's take the following claims:

Claim A: God exists

Claim B: God does not exist.

Both claims imply "knowledge" rather than belief.

I do not accept either claim until I am provided with sufficient evidence to believe them. My non-acceptance (non-belief) in Claim A makes me by definition, an atheist. My non-acceptance (non-belief) in Claim B still leaves me an atheist since I still do not actively believe in any particular god, but I am an agnostic atheist in that I do not believe we can have "knowledge" of god to claim the positive position that god does not exist. I also do not believe Claim B, because I believe that gods such as a deistic god, are possible, but I just have not yet come across any evidence which has convinced me to believe.

Why do you call yourself an atheist but speak as an agnostic? But whatever, the labels don't matter that much to me. The point is that, no matter what position you hold, it is fair for your opponent to demand a positive case to be made. You wanna hold to "weak atheism" or "strong agnosticism" or "whatchyamacallitism", that's fine. Pony up. Give some account of why that position is superior to <submit the view of your interlocutor here>. It's silly to say you can sit back, relax, and enjoy the show while theists of whatever stripe adduce arguments while simply firing pot shots at the evidence they adduce.

 

[logician]

There are some logical fallacies withe the agnostic position, one being the claim that the existence of a god is unknowable. If there was a god, and it did decide for some reason to directly make itself known, then this claim would be false. In other words, the agnostic claim is mistakenly dependant upon the unpredictable actions of a possible outside agent (god).

 

[slave2six]

How does one just &#8220;choose&#8221; to believe in god, if they have not been convinced that &#8220;he&#8221; 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.

I don't know if this applies to you but like many I was brainwashed from a very early age. It wasn't until I was 41, stopped attending church, began reading critical works about my faith and taking scientific evidence seriously that I came to the conclusion that if there is a god he/she/it is not "personal" nor has this deity made itself known to mankind. All religions are guessing games. Where the religion helps someone to be a better, more decent person, I see no harm in believing in gods or elves. It is when they become dogmatic and idiotic (e.g. "the way to be at peace with god is to kill a sheep or accept the human sacrifice of his favorite kid") that I draw the line.

Like you, there are a lot of things I want to believe but can find no evidence for. You are not an atheist, per se. You are merely substitious which means that you are open to a deity and that if a deity was to make itself known to you, you would be more than willing to jump on board. Any rational person would. It just kinda sucks that there isn't a god to blame for all this mess.

As someone else posted recently, "What if being the god of humans is god hell?" I couldn't think of a worse hell for a deity than to be stuck with an entire world of people talking out of their butts without the slightest idea of what I was really like.

 

[slave2six]

It doesn&#8217;t matter if I &#8220;want&#8221; to believe in god (which I do), because my beliefs aren&#8217;t arrived at based on what I &#8220;want&#8221; 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

That's awfully rude to imply that LT doesn't have an open heart. Clearly this person does, else why post this first message? The problem with the open heart idea is that "the heart is deceitful above all else." I believe this is a teaching of many of the most popular religions. I think it is true. Once you abdicate reason and allow feeling to reign, you're screwed.

 

[slave2six]

Okay, I see what you're saying, but maybe your could explain what overwhelming evidence you have found that God doesn't exist.

That's like saying, "Prove that there aren't invisible sixty ton reptiles on Jupiter."

 

[slave2six]

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

Operative word: opinion.

 

[slave2six]

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&#8217;t find Him because God has not revealed himself to you and if He doesn&#8217;t, it means that He doesn&#8217;t want you.

Then you need to re-write all those texts about God being a "father" or being "love itself." Parent-love is not selective and does not create intelligent souls in its own image just for the purposes of destruction. In short, your god sucks and I would not want to spend five seconds in any heaven with such a being.

You have provided just one more reason to not take Christians seriously...

 

[slave2six]

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.

Except that some have already done so quite well. Ludwig Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity (while very academic and therefore tedious) is one of the best examples of this.

 

[Dunemeister]

There are some logical fallacies withe the agnostic position, one being the claim that the existence of a god is unknowable. If there was a god, and it did decide for some reason to directly make itself known, then this claim would be false. In other words, the agnostic claim is mistakenly dependant upon the unpredictable actions of a possible outside agent (god).

Well, the agnostic would say that the whole business of a god making itself directly known begs the question. Lots of people make this claim. The agnostic says, along with Scrooge, that it could just as well be a bit of undigested potato.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Very great thread laffy_taffy. It's great to have another sincere, reasonable, and intelligent person around. It makes for great discussions. Welcome.

I have always believed in God since I can remember. That belief has only gotten stronger with time. I do not blame people for not believing in God however. I don't think it's a simple choice, just like you illustrated in your example. We(people) believe what we believe because of our experiences (well, most anyway). So the trick to believing in God is to experience something that convinces you of God's existence.

 

[Riverwolf]

Operative word: opinion.

Hence why I used it.