Don't Blame Me For Not Accepting Jesus

[Kenny]

"If there is a god, that god should know exactly what it would take to change my mind...and that god should be capable of doing whatever it would take. The fact that this hasn't happened can only mean one of two things: Either no such god exists, or whatever god exists doesn't care to convince me, at this time. In either case, it's not my problem and there's nothing I can do about it. Meanwhile, all of those believers who think that there is a god who does want me to know that he exists - are clearly, obviously, undeniably... wrong." - Matt Dillahunty"

1. The fact that this hasn't happened can only mean one of two things:
   1. Either no such god exists, or
   2. whatever god exists doesn't care to convince me, at this time.In either case,

That is if one who makes the construct of possibilities is just you.

There are many other possibilities:

1. You haven't asked the right questions
2. You simply don't care and don't want to know
3. One is simply hard headed and one is going to beat one's head on the wall whether it hurts or not
4. One has a victim mentality

it's not my problem and there's nothing I can do about it

This statement could be answered by any of the above.

 

[Mindmaster]

Likely, this is because the ones you know are English speaking residents of Christendom. We can't escape it. Christians keep demanding attention.
So yeah, that is who we are inclined to talk about most.
Tom

Does it grievously offend you when a door-to-door salesman knocks and he's selling something you have no interest in at all? That's why I don't agree with this specific argument. Christianity, like any product, is only viable insomuch as it is meeting the needs of it's adherents. They have no idea whether or not it'll work out for you when they approach you, but they see the value and feel the need to pass it on. Again, this comes back to the, "everyone wants to feel right", idea I presented earlier. It's natural for people to look for confirmation that their notions are viable, and what better way than to convince others.

I feel that the reason atheists keep bringing up these subjects has nothing to do with the Christians at all. It comes down to simpler things like pride, jealousy, vindictiveness, and cruelty. They want to prove the Christians are stupider than they are, they're proud that they escaped and everyone else is trash, they are upset that the Christians have community and they do not, spiritual devotion they just 'don't get' and envy, or they just feel like being mean to someone and who better than lay persons from a faith that 'wronged them' in their youth. (vengeance) Humans really are this simple, but also so dishonest with themselves that they'll never admit to any of these things.

 

[Kenny]

Does it grievously offend you when a door-to-door salesman knocks and he's selling something you have no interest in at all? That's why I don't agree with this specific argument. Christianity, like any product, is only viable insomuch as it is meeting the needs of it's adherents.\

Jesus would agree... as he said that the only the sick need a doctor (having a need that only a doctor can help in). If the person at the door has no need for a doctor for he feels that he is perfectly fine, he will ask him to leave.

 

[Skwim]

Ah, but it is the person of the LDS Jesus speaking through other people to you directly to change your mind. Gotcha!

WHAT???


.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

WHAT???


.

Sorry dude, it wasn't meant to be taken seriously, it was just religious word salad!

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Does it grievously offend you when a door-to-door salesman knocks and he's selling something you have no interest in at all? That's why I don't agree with this specific argument. Christianity, like any product, is only viable insomuch as it is meeting the needs of it's adherents. They have no idea whether or not it'll work out for you when they approach you, but they see the value and feel the need to pass it on. Again, this comes back to the, "everyone wants to feel right", idea I presented earlier. It's natural for people to look for confirmation that their notions are viable, and what better way than to convince others.

I feel that the reason atheists keep bringing up these subjects has nothing to do with the Christians at all. It comes down to simpler things like pride, jealousy, vindictiveness, and cruelty. They want to prove the Christians are stupider than they are, they're proud that they escaped and everyone else is trash, they are upset that the Christians have community and they do not, spiritual devotion they just 'don't get' and envy, or they just feel like being mean to someone and who better than lay persons from a faith that 'wronged them' in their youth. (vengeance) Humans really are this simple, but also so dishonest with themselves that they'll never admit to any of these things.

Yeah, a tad simplistic there mate, not everyone has an innate need to feel "right", I'm more than prepared to say "I don't know" when it comes to answering questions about life, the universe and everything (about plenty of other stuff as well to be honest!). I don't feel the need to fill in the gaps with religion, or science for that matter, because there is a lot of science I don't understand - my degree was in Chemistry, but when I listen to experts on quantum physics talk, it may as well be religious gobbledygook, I wouldn't claim to understand it or therefore believe it to be true. I might understand it better one day, but until then I'm not in a place to express an intelligent opinion.
One of the most refreshing things about being an atheist is being able to express intellectual honesty like that, I don't have to pretend I have the answers either magically revealed to me by a deity, or by reading a holy book. It is okay to be honest and admit "I don't know".

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I find it endlessly amusing that atheists continually gripe about Christianity after they've defected away from it, it's like they just can't move the hell on.

You'd be forgiven for thinking Christianity has a strong, even domineering presence in the countries where you're most likely to find atheists. Besides that, I think atheists tend to focus on Christianity because if they dare bring up criticisms of Islam you're deemed to be some kind of regressive.

 

[Mindmaster]

You'd be forgiven for thinking Christianity has a strong, even domineering presence in the countries where you're most likely to find atheists. Besides that, I think atheists tend to focus on Christianity because if they dare bring up criticisms of Islam you're deemed to be some kind of regressive.

That's just liberal politics, basically. It doesn't really matter what unspeakable acts are committed in the name of Islam as long as you can virtue signal your superiority by "understanding" and tolerating the tyrants. That's the governing trait of insanity - failing to recognize when you are in fact out of order or allowing atrocity to happen in your midst.... or worst aiding and abetting them...

 

[SpaceAgeLove]

I find it endlessly amusing that atheists continually gripe about Christianity after they've defected away from it, it's like they just can't move the hell on. Anyway, logic is not the privy of the atheists - a general blind faith in established science is and mostly it's apples and oranges. They dogmatically believe the "science" they are fed without investigating any of the data themselves and trusting various authorities. Rather than establishing a position of intellectual superiority, they are pseudo-intellectuals banking on the opinion of X being more right and only appear "more correct" if they just happen to latch, by luck mostly, onto what is correct. In essence, they are doing the same thing as the Christian does since they lack the ability to ascertain the correctness of any of the information themselves.

@Skwim - Things do not have to make sense (logically) to be useful. They can appeal as social vehicle, represent ones morality, or as a emotional support infrastructure. (Just a few examples, off the top of my head.) That's probably the thing that most "logical" people miss about the function of religion, in that it is much more than the books/dogma/etc. In that way, the religion can be an outwardly visible symbol of oneself that can be shared with the world. At least, if you pick one rather than just being bootstrapped into it from birth.

I love this post so much. I make these same points when debating fedora friends or my bf on the subject of spirituality, but sadly it tends to falls on deaf ears. Atheists can entail just as much close-mindedness and conviction as any other set of beliefs. When beliefs become convictions, they tend to get icky and off-putting to everyone else around them regardless of what those beliefs are.

 

[MJFlores]

According to Christian theology if I don't accept Jesus as my savior I will never make it into heaven and could likely end up in hell.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(John 3:16)​

Christians say that if I don't accept Jesus as my savior it's my own darn fault. Okay, but consider. Why do we accept something or reject it? We do so because we're convinced it makes sense. I accept the fact that evolution is true because to me it makes sense. I reject creationism because to me it doesn't make sense. So, if I'm to accept Jesus as my savior, above all else it has to make sense that I do so. There has to be some kind of compelling rational, and without this rational it would be unreasonable to agree to the proposition. I certainly wouldn't find believing in faeries and gnomes to be sensible if the only reason given is that this is what many people down through the ages have believed. People down through the ages also believed the earth was flat. I would need a more compelling rational to accept faeries and gnomes as a reasonable belief.

So, whose fault is it that I don't? Is it my fault that my mind has been so constructed that it rejects the argument of "people down through the ages have believed"? Hardly. Other than perhaps exercising the mind to work a bit better, none of us chooses how it accepts or rejects information. So what I believe is dependent on the information making its impression on my mind. I don't choose how information X is going to be processed. This process is an automatic one. Perhaps fear is a huge motivating factor within the processing operation. No matter how outlandish a proposition may be, scare me enough and I'll believe it. Or perhaps reason is thee controlling factor within the processing operation. Proposition XYZ has to make sense or I'll reject it. The thing is, we don't choose how these factors weigh in on our conclusions. Just as one doesn't choose what they find attractive about other people. What we find attractive and don't find attractive depends on how our minds have been configured. And this configuration is not something we choose. In effect, our mind is compelled to operate in a certain manner.

Therefore, we can't be held responsible for how our mind processes information. So, if I'm to find believing in faeries and gnomes sensible, where would the responsibility have to lie? What's left are those influences outside myself. If I'm to believe in faeries and gnomes then someone or something is going to have to persuade those deciding factors in my mind that it makes sense, and it's what I should do. Now, I have very little influence over what kind of evidence or argument I'm presented. It might even be a case of GIGO. If the ICFB, the International Council of Faerie Belief, fails to scare me into believing in faeries and gnomes, that's their fault, not mine. If the ICFB, fails to present a persuasive enough case to accept faeries and gnomes, that's their fault, not mine. And this goes right down to those individual representatives of the ICFB. If my neighbor down the block comes knocking on my door trying to get me to accept faeries and gnomes and fails, it's his fault, not mine. Or, if no one presents any information on faeries and gnomes for me to consider, it isn't my fault either.

So, In as much as I can't help how my mind processes information, and I can't help if the tactics of Christians fail to persuade me that believing in the Son is the way to an everlasting life, why should I perish because of it? If any blame is to be laid it has to be on those presenting, or failing to present, the case for Jesus.

.

No one is blaming you.

Religion is a choice and a freedom. It is the hallmark of a nation that the nation is free. You should know that, as an American.

When a country bans religious beliefs, the country is run by an autocrat or the government favors one religion over another - that country isn't free.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Lets look at it this way. What if I fail to accept Donald Trump as my president. I didn't vote for him. I don't believe he is qualified. I don't believe he has my best interests at heart. If he creates a law that I don't agree with, what happens if I break that law and get caught. He failed to persuade me that I should follow any thing he says or does. Those that present his case are as idiotic as he is. The only case they have is a piece of paper written over 200 years ago that has no connection to me. Why should I be penalized for ignoring him.

In this particular case, you had the facts available to you - and were likely informed or understood - as to what might happen were you to fail to comply, or to outright "break the rules." There may be very real, and knowable consequences that are acted out in your immediate future - your actual/physical/knowable/real future.

With religion, all you ever have is hearsay. Ever... at all. So, let's say that the laws of the United States were more like religion. You wouldn't even know whether the consequences for breaking the laws were real. You certainly wouldn't encounter any of those consequences, and you would see A LOT of other people breaking the laws and not seeing any sort of consequence themselves. Welcome to the state of the religious world.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I find it endlessly amusing that atheists continually gripe about Christianity after they've defected away from it, it's like they just can't move the hell on.

Your view is a bit myopic. I am an atheist but was never "Christian" - and yet I am constantly "picking a fight" with Christianity's belief set, tactics and organization. I refuse to "move the hell on" because I, personally, have found this belief set to be a problem. And no, I don't just stop at Christianity. There is a basic level of issue I take with ALL religion. It is, quite simply, a point of separation. One more thing for people to get butt-hurt over and claim one another are liars or acting like idiots about. Religious belief is a completely unnecessary endeavor that splits humanity up into more "camps." Which is just what humanity needs, right?

A general blind faith in established science is and mostly it's apples and oranges. They dogmatically believe the "science" they are fed without investigating any of the data themselves and trusting various authorities.

Here again with the sweeping generalizations. I, myself, am rather wary of science's supposed "authority." There are discoveries that make complete sense, that resonate too well with reality to be denied, and then there are other things that are exploited, or not covered well enough to be trusted - chemicals like DDT, or some vaccine cell-substrates and the general inability to know exactly what you are injecting into your body - in may ways, modern pharmaceuticals are a joke - pandering to hypochondriacs with near-make-believe conditions, that the prescribed medications only marginally affect - while doing who-knows-what to the "patient". Granted, "science" itself is not really responsible for people taking advantage of the technological implications of findings, but science is certainly the gateway - and it definitely needn't be as prolific as many people have pushed into place. Atheists are not "followers of science." It is, quite frankly, dumb to equate the two that way. I just don't believe in God. So what?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Religion is a choice and a freedom. It is the hallmark of a nation that the nation is free. You should know that, as an American.

When a country bans religious beliefs, the country is run by an autocrat or the government favors one religion over another - that country isn't free.

It IS possible to rail against religion and not wish to see it "banned." I want no "law" or "force" brought into the equation at all. People should be completely free to believe whatever it is they want to. It is only action that should be judged (to the point of punishment or retaliatory action, I mean), whether there is ideology behind the action or not.

That said, the reason I argue so often with those of faith is because the ideal situation would be that everyone realize that religion is an unnecessary point of separation for mankind - a way to keep ourselves divided up in yet another series of "I'm right, you're wrong" positions. Even the religions themselves get torn apart by this! It is a ridiculous JOKE. An outmoded, foolish endeavor that only ever keeps people from interfacing with one another on a human-to-human basis, in my opinion. Most often, what I see from believers is believer-to-believer interaction, not human-to-human. As soon as someone knows another is from a different camp of thought on "spiritual" beliefs, something is immediately lost - as if they can't fully be considered friend. And believe me - I, personally, never foist my beliefs on anyone in my real life dealings. Ever. I don't tell them unless it finally comes up, and I am extremely discreet even at that point so as not to (pardon this dysphemism) destroy their precious little minds. Online it's different - I'm simply not here to make friends.

I am also vegan for ethical and common-sense reasons - but don't want there to be any laws or anyone forced to conform to that either. People need to see the facts and come to their own conclusions that something is the most "right" for humanity (and all the other inhabitants of Earth) as a whole. If they don't, you move on to the next person with the facts and understanding you have come to and hope something sticks - that's the best any of us can hope for.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Mostly, the need to be 'right' is more important than the need for the 'truth' for most humans. It's hard to address a concept like that without stumbling into what, at first glance, seems like an over-generalization of some form. The observation holds valid regardless of how many toes are stepped on along the way. Can we at least admit there is a difference between what on-paper atheism is, and what it really is in practice? For most people it is just swap religion with science, and everything else remains the same. These people need answers, and the religion failed them but science has them, eh?

*shrugs*
Nup. I've made plenty of posts on these very forums admitting that ignorance is a large part of why I'm an agnostic atheist.
It's not about 'stepping on toes'. Atheists are certainly not immune from any of humanity's common foibles, be they fundamentalism (ask Mao), arrogance, bone-headedness, or anything else. But neither are they more certain to hold such positions.
And saying anything about 'atheists' as if they are a homogenous group, is about as likely to be correct as making an assertion about 'theists'.

Atheism in its purest form basically makes no assertion that because "no god exists" science/logic/intellectualism is right by default, but most people don't believe that way. There are very few people to embrace such a pure form of it, and I'm only directly aware of one.

Atheism makes no assertions, regardless of what anyone thinks, including atheists.
However, ALL atheists make assertions. Despite what some folks might suggest, atheists are humans. Humans make assertions. What you are saying is that 'atheists replace religion with science'. That seems inaccurate on several levels, in terms of being true enough or useful enough to work as a generalisation, even. But then again, I live in a country where 'non-religious' is a larger group than 'Catholic', and where over 30% of the population self-identify in this way.

Unless you think millions of Australians have replaced religion with science, and act in some sort of science worshipping fashion?
I mean...you don't really think internet atheists are particularly representative of non-believers at large, do you?

 

[james bond]

I've said this before, Skwim. To me, this is a strange thread. Maybe it's your subconscious telling you to do the right thing since you know and understand. If you accept it, then embrace it. Tattoo "I rather rule in hell than serve in heaven" and buy a Harley. Vroom. Vroom. Roooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! How cool will you look? Chicks dig the bad boys.

 

[bobhikes]

In this particular case, you had the facts available to you - and were likely informed or understood - as to what might happen were you to fail to comply, or to outright "break the rules." There may be very real, and knowable consequences that are acted out in your immediate future - your actual/physical/knowable/real future.

With religion, all you ever have is hearsay. Ever... at all. So, let's say that the laws of the United States were more like religion. You wouldn't even know whether the consequences for breaking the laws were real. You certainly wouldn't encounter any of those consequences, and you would see A LOT of other people breaking the laws and not seeing any sort of consequence themselves. Welcome to the state of the religious world.

I see and know a lot of people breaking the governments laws and not getting consequences. I see and know business's breaking government laws and not having any consequences. I am not informed of all the laws especially if I travel through states that have different laws that effect me. The government makes the laws so complicated at times I can not understand them or there consequences.

I don't see a difference.

 

[Muffled]

According to Christian theology if I don't accept Jesus as my savior I will never make it into heaven and could likely end up in hell.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(John 3:16)​

Christians say that if I don't accept Jesus as my savior it's my own darn fault. Okay, but consider. Why do we accept something or reject it? We do so because we're convinced it makes sense. I accept the fact that evolution is true because to me it makes sense. I reject creationism because to me it doesn't make sense. So, if I'm to accept Jesus as my savior, above all else it has to make sense that I do so. There has to be some kind of compelling rational, and without this rational it would be unreasonable to agree to the proposition. I certainly wouldn't find believing in faeries and gnomes to be sensible if the only reason given is that this is what many people down through the ages have believed. People down through the ages also believed the earth was flat. I would need a more compelling rational to accept faeries and gnomes as a reasonable belief.

So, whose fault is it that I don't? Is it my fault that my mind has been so constructed that it rejects the argument of "people down through the ages have believed"? Hardly. Other than perhaps exercising the mind to work a bit better, none of us chooses how it accepts or rejects information. So what I believe is dependent on the information making its impression on my mind. I don't choose how information X is going to be processed. This process is an automatic one. Perhaps fear is a huge motivating factor within the processing operation. No matter how outlandish a proposition may be, scare me enough and I'll believe it. Or perhaps reason is thee controlling factor within the processing operation. Proposition XYZ has to make sense or I'll reject it. The thing is, we don't choose how these factors weigh in on our conclusions. Just as one doesn't choose what they find attractive about other people. What we find attractive and don't find attractive depends on how our minds have been configured. And this configuration is not something we choose. In effect, our mind is compelled to operate in a certain manner.

Therefore, we can't be held responsible for how our mind processes information. So, if I'm to find believing in faeries and gnomes sensible, where would the responsibility have to lie? What's left are those influences outside myself. If I'm to believe in faeries and gnomes then someone or something is going to have to persuade those deciding factors in my mind that it makes sense, and it's what I should do. Now, I have very little influence over what kind of evidence or argument I'm presented. It might even be a case of GIGO. If the ICFB, the International Council of Faerie Belief, fails to scare me into believing in faeries and gnomes, that's their fault, not mine. If the ICFB, fails to present a persuasive enough case to accept faeries and gnomes, that's their fault, not mine. And this goes right down to those individual representatives of the ICFB. If my neighbor down the block comes knocking on my door trying to get me to accept faeries and gnomes and fails, it's his fault, not mine. Or, if no one presents any information on faeries and gnomes for me to consider, it isn't my fault either.

So, In as much as I can't help how my mind processes information, and I can't help if the tactics of Christians fail to persuade me that believing in the Son is the way to an everlasting life, why should I perish because of it? If any blame is to be laid it has to be on those presenting, or failing to present, the case for Jesus.

.

I believe that is a nice try but I believe the information you have received is quite reasonable and your rejection of it unreasonable and therefore it is an active choice not a mental aberration. So you most certainly deserve to go to hell.

Just in case you need a new perspective on it, God is good and everything else is bad. When You choose Jesus, you choose good and when you refuse Jesus you choose evil.

That means even though you don't do it yourself you are on the same side as those who rape and kill five year old girls.

 

[Muffled]

New Testament condemns you to hell for not accepting him.
Old Testament condemns those that do accept him.

I believe that is patently false. You might as well believe in fairies as believe that.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I see and know a lot of people breaking the governments laws and not getting consequences. I see and know business's breaking government laws and not having any consequences. I am not informed of all the laws especially if I travel through states that have different laws that effect me. The government makes the laws so complicated at times I can not understand them or there consequences.

I don't see a difference.

Huge difference, and I know you see it, you're just trying to remain "right." Are there plenty of people breaking laws without consequences in the real, physical world? Sure - there always will be because there can't ever be 100% coverage by "the authorities", and as you said, many times the rules are convoluted or completely unknown by the "perpetrating" party. But there are plenty who don't get away with their crimes - just look in on your local prison scene. And how many of those people breaking religion-ONLY based rules/laws (I'm not talking "thou shalt not kill" here, obviously as some like this exist in both religious and secular circles) do you see being punished by the supposed authority in that situation? Zero. There are only those punished by their physical/real brethren who are trying to hold them accountable "on God's behalf." Because apparently God can't handle things Himself... at all... ever. Or maybe He used to some thousands of years ago? Maybe? Someone wrote about it? Sounds tenuous to me.

The point being, the authorities in real-world situations, who attempt to act on real-world rules and laws ACTUALLY EXIST, are KNOWN TO EXIST, and are a force you may have to contend with if you decide to break those laws. The authorities are people like us, or even ourselves, and are at least trying to play mediator to the law-books with the public at large. God isn't trying. He can't. Last I checked, existence is sort of a prerequisite for "trying" anything.

 

[Muffled]

Reminds me of one of my first room mates. He kept going on about me needing to go to church, and tried to engage in Biblical debates for me. One of the things I enjoyed pointing out to him is it wasn't so much Jesus going on about accepting him as his savior and all that to be saved, but rather that his ways are the ways of peace, love, and community. He said to be meek, and humble, and love thy neighbor as thyself. He seemed to be way more concerned that people take care of each other and show each other love and peace than gathering together to worship him. I kind of get the feeling he'd rather people worship in private anyways to not draw public attention to themselves.

I believe that is more a case of seeing what you wanted to see and ignoring the rest. Jesus didn't have to come to promote the law because that already existed. He had to come because no-one was able to keep the law.

I believe that is a bit confused in your mind. Jesus encouraged communal worship. You are right that He did find fault with people on an ego trip.