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

[emiliano]

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...

There are no such messages in the Bible that would suggest that God call Himself father or love itself it is us that formed that opinion, the apostle John expressed both these concepts, Jesus as the son of man (100% human) expressed similar concepts, I see it in the same light though the experiences that I have in my daily communion with Him.
You have provided one more reason to know that you lack reason and that you are a reprobate that thought that was ever of God, it is obvious that you cannot reason the goodness of God and the place that His elect attain (

Rom 8:15
For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father." ​

), after all you believe that humans are evolved monkey and the cause of this up evolution is random and fortuity, perhaps you are in need of some more evolution. BTW I believe in evolution and in old earth theory it does not make change my love for God and the best way that I can express my feelings is to call Him my father and wish with all my heart to adopt into the family.
God said to Moses I am the God of your ancestors.

Gen 28:13
And behold, the LORD stood above it and said: "I [am] the LORD God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and your descendants.
Gen 49:25
By the God of your father who will help you, And by the Almighty who will bless you [With] blessings of heaven above, Blessings of the deep that lies beneath, Blessings of the breasts and of the womb.​

Father is the best way that the inspired writer could use in their preaching. I see no reason to change the concept.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Heavenly father is just that, our father. We are his children. He loves every one of us and wants us all to be happy, not just a select few. As he says in scripture he is no "respecter of persons." A loving and just God (in my opinion) would never condemn someone simply for their honest beliefs. It doesn't make sense. Everyone must be given a chance to accept Jesus Christ. In order for that chance to be real, the person/people must actually believe in God. How can you accept someone you don't believe in? That is why everyone will be given a knowledge of God before the final judgment. I bet a lot more people will accept Christ when they have actually seen him and know what kind of being he really is, as opposed to believing in a theoretical possibility of his existence.

 

[emiliano]

Heavenly father is just that, our father. We are his children. He loves every one of us and wants us all to be happy, not just a select few. As he says in scripture he is no "respecter of persons." A loving and just God (in my opinion) would never condemn someone simply for their honest beliefs. It doesn't make sense. Everyone must be given a chance to accept Jesus Christ. In order for that chance to be real, the person/people must actually believe in God. How can you accept someone you don't believe in? That is why everyone will be given a knowledge of God before the final judgment. I bet a lot more people will accept Christ when they have actually seen him and know what kind of being he really is, as opposed to believing in a theoretical possibility of his existence.

What are the scriptures that support this?
Did Jesus say anything to that effect?
Is this a revamped purgatory’s doctrine?
I believe that our earthly life is when we are to purge ourselves, this is purgatory.

Rom 9:4
who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; ​

Rom 9:8
That is, those who [are] the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. ​

So nobody is son unless one believes.

Jhn 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: ​

And how are they going to call upon whose name they don’t believe.

Jhn 3:36
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
Jhn 5:38
But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe.
Rom 10:16
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "LORD, who has believed our report?" ​

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

What are the scriptures that support this?
Did Jesus say anything to that effect?
Is this a revamped purgatory’s doctrine?
I believe that our earthly life is when we are to purge ourselves, this is purgatory.

Rom 9:4
who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; ​

Rom 9:8
That is, those who [are] the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. ​

So nobody is son unless one believes.

Jhn 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: ​

And how are they going to call upon whose name they don’t believe.

Jhn 3:36
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
Jhn 5:38
But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe.
Rom 10:16
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "LORD, who has believed our report?" ​

First, thanks for responding to my post. I am glad you took the time and cared enough. I believe that we are all literally sons and daughters of God. However, there is another meaning for which"children of God" is used. This expression seems to also be used to refer to the faithful followers of God. Those who receive Jesus Christ are born again and are adopted. They become children of Christ. I think this is different and goes beyond the other meaning, that we are all God's children. There are scriptures that point to this. But I think the strongest evidence lies within our own hearts. What does the spirit tell you? I feel very strongly that we are all brothers and sisters, children of a wonderful, loving Father. If you'd like though, I could post a few scriptures that support my view. I find that most people just interpret the Bible to say what they already believe anyway. So I don't think it would help much.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"But I think the strongest evidence lies within our own hearts. What does the spirit tell you? "

Nothing. She/he/it/whatever stands mute.

 

[cottage]

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.

I've been ploughing studiously through the above, and although there is reference to all the classic proofs, I've not been able to find any argument that claims to prove God's non-existence. Perhaps I've missed something?

 

[cottage]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...sts-not-choosing-post1587419.html#post1587419
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.

Dunemeister: 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.

Cottage: Not one of the above engaged in such an absurd activity. They did not contrive to prove God’s non-existence. Hume, for example, offered a compelling argument to show God’s existence is not demonstrable, but being able to conceive the non-existence of a thing does not prove non-existence; it just shows that existence doesn’t follow from a definition, which is a point I make further down this page. And Flew famously identified the falsification principle, noting how it is impossible to apply to religious beliefs.

Quote:
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: First of all, believers do provide evidence. That you find it unconvincing is niether here nor there.
Cottage: What I actually said (above) was to demand proof of non-existence is nonsensical when believers themselves can provide no proof. And it isn’t a matter of whether I find it unconvincing, but more a matter of whether the arguments are sound.

Dunemeister: 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.
Cottage: Look, it is you who maintains that there is a God, a supernatural being who has done, and will do particular things. I am a sceptic, one without belief, who sees no compelling evidence for such a being. So convince me! But don’t tell me to go and prove non-existence. I look forward to your reading your arguments.



Dunemeister: 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.

Cottage: Well, at least you acknowledge the nonsense (non-sense) of proving the non-existence of gods or God. And I do not have to provide an alternative to your claims, since I have ‘intellectually responsible’ objections to them. So make your assertions, and I promise to respond.

Quote:
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: 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.)

Cottage: I will reiterate what I said previously. It is absurd to speak of proving a thing’s non-existence. The inconsistent triad does not demonstrate that theism is impossible: it shows that one or more of the attributes imply a contradiction: if God exists, he will not be benevolent or not be omnipotent. It is the premises that are true or false, but God’s non-existence cannot be proved, or disproved, a priori.
And I’m extremely interested to hear how the argument has been 'basically refuted'.

Quote:
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.


Dunemeister: 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).


Cottage: There are what I call anti-theists, those who are dogmatists, just as there are theists who argue dogmatically for their beliefs. But there are countless people throughout the world, of which I am one, who are a-theist: without belief in gods. And it doesn’t make sense to say the world is a-theist, since theism and its opposite, atheism, are concerned with beliefs.

 

[Dunemeister]

Okay Cottage, you've proven that you're not really interested in intellectual responsibility, so I suppose that ends any possibility of true dialogue. Adieu.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Okay Cottage, you've proven that you're not really interested in intellectual responsibility, so I suppose that ends any possibility of true dialogue. Adieu.

Translation:

You won't play by my rules so I am taking MY ball and going home. My god has a glass of warm milk and a hug waiting for Me.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"And I’m extremely interested to hear how the argument has been 'basically refuted'.'


I was also. Guess we will have to wait for "the end times" to find out.:sad4:

 

[cottage]

Okay Cottage, you've proven that you're not really interested in intellectual responsibility, so I suppose that ends any possibility of true dialogue. Adieu.

What! You haven't responded to a single point that I've made in that post. I'll make a deal with you, though. Agree to fully answer the points I've made and I will be very pleased indeed to give you my thesis?

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Translation:

You won't play by my rules so I am taking MY ball and going home. My god has a glass of warm milk and a hug waiting for Me.

:clap lol!

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

"But I think the strongest evidence lies within our own hearts. What does the spirit tell you? "

Nothing. She/he/it/whatever stands mute.

Quite understandably too. It would really, really surprise me to know you were used to communicating with the Holy Spirit yet didn't believe in God. Anyway, my comment was directed at emiliano, sorry. But you do bring up a good topic of discussion. Do you wish to discuss it here, or would you prefer to just move on? It would be interesting, but might derail the thread.

 

[emiliano]

To DavyCroket2003,

First, thanks for responding to my post. I am glad you took the time and cared enough. I believe that we are all literally sons and daughters of God.

Thank you for your detailed response to mine I have pondered many times on this subject.

However, there is another meaning for which "children of God" is used. This expression seems to also be used to refer to the faithful followers of God.

That’s the one that I have as the rule in my system of belief and those are my brother, because anther rule in it is that only God’s saves and He does it because of His great Mercy I believe that Is He that elect those that He saves.

Those who receive Jesus Christ are born again and are adopted.

This is skipping that God draws us as to the savior and that He does not do this for all, which is evident by the existence of Atheists, Pagan and non believers. This is another bone of contention in Christianity. Nobody comes to the Savior unless drawn by God, which brings offense on those Christians that would say that this= to believe that we have some role in our Salvation (this would make an interesting topic to discuss)

They become children of Christ. I think this is different and goes beyond the other meaning, that we are all God's children.

That we are brothers because God created us all?
Now we believe that the creation was through Jesus and he said

Jhn 10:27
My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.​

There are scriptures that point to this. But I think the strongest evidence lies within our own hearts. What does the spirit tell you?

Jud 1:5

But I want to remindyou, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.​

What else could the spirit say but what Jesus said?

Jhn 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.​

I feel very strongly that we are all brothers and sisters, children of a wonderful, loving Father. If you'd like though, I could post a few scriptures that support my view. I find that most people just interpret the Bible to say what they already believe anyway. So I don't think it would help much.

Please do I am interested, I like to hear other people angle on the scriptures.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

To DavyCroket2003,

Thank you for your detailed response to mine I have pondered many times on this subject.

You're very welcome. I love discussing things with polite and interested people like yourself.

That’s the one that I have as the rule in my system of belief and those are my brother, because anther rule in it is that only God’s saves and He does it because of His great Mercy I believe that Is He that elect those that He saves.

I agree that it is only God who can save us. Obviously he cares about us very much to send his Son to die for us.

This is skipping that God draws us as to the savior and that He does not do this for all, which is evident by the existence of Atheists, Pagan and non believers. This is another bone of contention in Christianity. Nobody comes to the Savior unless drawn by God, which brings offense on those Christians that would say that this= to believe that we have some role in our Salvation (this would make an interesting topic to discuss)

I don't believe that the existence of Atheists, Pagans etc. points to God not wanting them. They just haven't found him yet. I believe all will eventually know who Jesus Christ is and be given a chance to accept him. I suppose you could say that I believe all men will be drawn unto Christ. I am one of those people that believes we must play a hand in our own salvation.:sorry1: A good way of describing it is this: Jesus Christ, and all of his atoning, justifying power is waiting to help us. He wants to bless us and change us into beings of light. However, he will not barge in on us and change us. He stands at the door and knocks. We must open the door. We don't do anything of ourselves that could possible save us. All we do is allow Jesus Christ to change us and heal us.

Please do I am interested, I like to hear other people angle on the scriptures.

Great!
In Numbers 16:22, Moses and Aaron call upon God. Notice the title they add:

And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation?

Now, one scripture doesn't mean a lot. It could be an error in translation. However, if this scripture is correct, it clearly shows that God is the father of our spirits (or at least, Moses and Aaron consider him such).

In Ephesians 4:6, Paul calls God the Father of All:

One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

I think this is referring to all mankind, not all the righteous members of the Church.

In the epistle to the Hebrews, Paul shows us the distinction between our earthly father, and our Heavenly Father. Everyone has a body and a spirit. Most of us know our earthly father, the father of our bodies. God is the father of our spirits.

Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

From these scriptures, and from what I feel by praying and pondering, I believe God is the father of our spirits. This is different from the Children of Christ. When we accept Jesus Christ and let his power work in our lives, we become his children, part of the Church. Anyway, what do you think?

*It should be noted that I have an unfair advantage when looking for clarity in the scriptures. Anything that leaves me confused can easily be cleared up by searching the Book of Mormon.

 

[emiliano]

To Davy Crocket,
In Numbers 16:22, Moses and Aaron call upon God. Notice the title they add:
Quote:
And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation?


I believe that the scriptures translations may use different words to express an idea but they refer to a common concept, having said that let look at Number 22 in context. Placing it in time we see that is a time of Judgment and verse

Num 16:26
And he spoke to the congregation, saying, "Depart now from the tents of these wicked men! Touch nothing of theirs, lest you be consumed in all their sins." ​

In the continuum of scriptures we find that the wicket will be utterly destroyed, in Psalm 37 we find that they will disappear like smoke.

Psa 37:10
For yet a little while and the wicked [shall be] no [more]; Indeed, you will look carefully for his place, But it [shall be] no [more]. ​

Psa 37:13​

The Lord laughs at him, For He sees that his day is coming. ​

Num 16:41
On the next day all the congregation of the children of Israel complained against Moses and Aaron, saying, "You have killed the people of the LORD."
Num 16:44
And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
Num 16:45
"Get away from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment." And they fell on their faces.​

So God spoke and rebuke them for thinking that these people were His people and that it was Moses that killed them.

 

[Dunemeister]

Cottage,

Six points. First, all the philosophers I have mentioned have attempted to demonstrate that atheism is true, not just that theism is false. I won't bother rehearsing all of their arguments, but they generally fall into one of several categories. The first category (and here we can add Freud, Nietzche, and Marx), religious belief is explained on naturalistic grounds, which are taken to be sufficient. The idea here is that since a naturalistic explanation suffices, there is no need to postulate a god. If a god were behind religious belief, so they contend, naturalistic explanations for the belief shouldn't work. But they do. All the philosophers I've mentioned have taken this tack one way or another. If these philosophers are right, then strictly speaking, there might be a god of some sort or other, but that god is so far removed from what most theists think of as god, and is apparently so irrelevant to human concerns and beyond detection, that such a god can be safely ignored. In other words, if they are right, nothing very interesting answers to the term "god".

Second, you seem to be assuming that atheism is the default view, that one can be an intellectually responsible atheist by sitting on her laurels and waiting for the theist to disprove atheism or prove theism. But that's simply not the case. Even a cursory glance at professional atheistic writing shows that they are earnestly concerned with putting a positive case forward for atheism. They are not concerned merely with picking apart theistic arguments. That's not to say that I expect every person who is an atheist to be "professional", but they should realize that it IS a weakness of their position if they can produce no argument to support atheism.

Third, I'm a bit concerned about the use of the word "proof." If you don't mind, I'd prefer to use "proof" in its logical sense such as we find it in mathematics. Thus "proof" belongs strictly to the world of logic and math, not to areas of material concern. In areas of material concern, let us use word such as "evidence." Strictly speaking, you do not "prove" a material fact, you provide "evidence," which can range in strength from very weak to compelling, for that putative fact. What I fear is that you're asking the theist to provide "proof" in the strong logical sense, which is impossible; but then, it's impossible to provide proof, in this sense, for any material claim.

Fourth, I have never suggested that the atheist must produce an almost indefinitely long series of arguments demonstrating the absence of this or that god in order to show that atheism is true. To win the day, the atheist need not take on such a burden. The atheist should, though, demonstrate why atheism is superior to theism in several ways. If the atheist simply debunks theistic arguments, that has not yet demonstrated that atheism is the more rational view. She has only shown that theism doesn't have very good arguments in its favor. It could still yet be true, and so far, we have yet to see any reason to prefer atheism. As it stands, both views are on a par. What argument, then, can the atheist adduce in favor of atheism? Yes, you DO have to produce such arguments to be intellectually responsible with your atheism.

Fifth, regarding the refutation of the PoE (the logical version at least), you should examine Alvin Plantiga's Free Will Defense[/quote]. It's not without its problems (see point 10 in the article linked to), but even today, most philosophers think that something along this line refutes the logical problem of evil (as opposed to the emotional problem of evil, which it really doesn't address except to take the logical "punch" out of it). And contrary to your opinion, if the PoE, as classicly put, were proven sound, it WOULD be nasty problem for many theists: Jews, Muslims, and Christians in particular, who account for far and away the majority of theists on the planet ATM. So although you are right to say that, logically, the soundess of the PoE could mean that another god exists - one that is not loving, for instance - you are incorrect to assume that this is not an interesting or important result.

Last, I reject your notion that an atheist is simply someone without a particular belief. Just as theists make a positive claim about the world, viz., that there is a god of some sort, atheism is the positive view that there are no such things as gods. As a theist, I'm not saying "I happen to believe in a god but I'm not saying the world contains a god." That would be absurd. Similarly, the atheist is not simply saying that she lacks a belief in a god; she is saying positively that there are no such things as gods. If you are not saying that, you are not an atheist. Perhaps you're an agnostic who prefers the sexier term "atheist" (agnostic sounds like such waffling). I dunno. The point is that to be an intellectually honest atheist, you must acknowledge that you are making a claim about the way the world is. If you're not, you're agnostic, who is a person who doesn't believe in a god but is making the more modest claim that knowledge of god is elusive. However, having rejected your use of terms, nothing hangs on it, so you are free to keep it if you like, and I won't make any more hay over it.

By the way, our discussion has gotten away from the subject of the thread, so we should probably take our issue elsewhere. The current thread has to do with whether atheists are somehow blameworthy for not believing in a god. Discussion of the PoE is beyond the scope of this thread, and so is the question whether the atheist has any positive burden of proof (proof here taken very loosely to mean "making a case"). Each of the six points I made above could warrant its own thread, and may I suggest that if we would like to pursue them further, we open another thread.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

Likewise, one cannot blame those who believe in things which have no evidence. Reason is as important to them, as faith is to us.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Sorry guys, this is a little of topic. If you want us to stop, just tell us.

To emiliano:
So, I read your post, and looked at the scriptures. I'm a little lost. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make to me. Or maybe it's something I already agree with. That all the wicked will be punished? I believe that. Could you help me with a little more info?

 

[Willamena]

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.

Yeah, but if it didn't, it wouldn't.

In other words, the agnostic claim is mistakenly dependant upon the unpredictable actions of a possible outside agent (god).

Or perhaps the fallacy lies in the unpredictable actions of a possible outside agent (god) that are mistakenly claimed.