God is Imaginary
Replies
-
You don't consider eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus as proof. I bet if God showed up in your living room, you'd still offer some other explanation. You willfully choose to reject God. I get that. I realize I'm not going to change your mind, but I have offered quite a bit on the subject supporting the existence of God.
I agree with you here on one point - I can say nothing to change your mind. You can say nothing to change mind. You see evidence for God all around you. I see none at all.
However, I must take you up on one important point - no atheist rejects God. For an atheist there is no god to reject. There is nothing willful about it. It's just a fact.0 -
You cannot speak for all atheists, just as I cannot speak for all Christians. I've spoken to many atheists who would say they reject God, or reject the idea there is a God. For many, it absolutely is willful. It's a sign of rebellion or defiance.However, I must take you up on one important point - no atheist rejects God. For an atheist there is no god to reject. There is nothing willful about it. It's just a fact.0 -
For many, it absolutely is willful. It's a sign of rebellion or defiance.
I have never heard anyone except Christians say anything like that.
An atheist is someone who has no belief in God (or gods). A rebellion against God requires a belief in God to rebel against. An atheist cannot rebel against God because there is no God for them to rebel against.0 -
I agree with m_a_b. Rejecting God is different from rejecting the idea that any gods exist. And saying you're an atheist as an act of rebellion or defiance would be the same as converting to Islam or Paganism as an act of defiance, that is, not really based on belief.0
-
I have. I've been told that by several atheists, especially younger ones. One of them even explained it to me like this, "My parents had control over much of my life, but I decided they could not make me believe, so I chose not to believe as an act of rebellion". It's more common than you may think.I have never heard anyone except Christians say anything like that.
I understand what you're saying, but certainly you know there are atheists who don't really understand this. I find some of my atheist friends talking about God more than my Christian friends. They can deny believing in Him, but they sure think about Him a lot.An atheist is someone who has no belief in God (or gods). A rebellion against God requires a belief in God to rebel against. An atheist cannot rebel against God because there is no God for them to rebel against.0 -
When someone says, "I don't believe in God", that's like saying, "There is a God (or may be a God), but I don't believe". That's different than saying, "There is no God". I've heard atheists say both. You can argue with another atheist over this; I'm just telling you what I hear.I agree with m_a_b. Rejecting God is different from rejecting the idea that any gods exist.
You'd be surprised how many people change religions as an act of rebellion. I'm not sure why this is so surprising to you.And saying you're an atheist as an act of rebellion or defiance would be the same as converting to Islam or Paganism as an act of defiance, that is, not really based on belief.0 -
It is not possible to choose not to believe. If it is then you should be able to choose to not believe in God for the rest of this afternoon and then choose to believe in him again this evening. Belief is a product of logic. Your logic tells you that God exists. My logic tells me that God does not exist. There is no choice."My parents had control over much of my life, but I decided they could not make me believe, so I chose not to believe as an act of rebellion"0 -
It is not possible to choose not to believe. If it is then you should be able to choose to not believe in God for the rest of this afternoon and then choose to believe in him again this evening. Belief is a product of logic. Your logic tells you that God exists. My logic tells me that God does not exist. There is no choice.
Belief is an act of the will and intellect. A person may do things to predispose themselves to belief or unbelief. If you are suggesting that human beings are purely “determined” to their beliefs and that study, reflection, etc., cannot alter or lead to changes of belief, I think that is empirically false. There are many examples of people “coming to believe” something they rejected before (probably all of us experience this in some way or another). Mostly, I suppose, this results from a variety of factors, both internal and external. I agree that people can’t just “turn on” belief and unbelief but I do think that our openness to belief in God results from a more fundamental way of experiencing reality and that this can change through choices we make and experiences we have. For instance, a person who does not believe in God but hears a good argument or reason for belief in God may choose to study the subject more with an open attitude and then come to change their beliefs. Another may hear a good reason and then close their mind to learning more. Since I believe that human freedom is real, I don’t think a person is simply “doomed” to be an unbeliever but may determine themselves to grow into a disposition of belief.0 -
Regarding the current argument of why and how atheists believe/don't believe what they do... I'll do what I do with every important topic.
Consult the television show Firefly.
Religion is touched upon a few times in the show. Two characters stand out as "non-believers" but for completely different reasons.
Captain Malcolm Reynolds is shown at the start of the show to be a faithful man fighting a war and believing his cause is just and God is on his side. When he loses that war he renounces his faith. He doesn't want to hear any mention of God again.
River Tam is a genius prodigy who's been the subject of brain tampering. In a scene she can be found going through the Shepherd's bible and crossing out all the contradictions and illogical bits.
Now on the surface both could be considered to be "atheists" but really River is the "true" atheist. She believes that no such deity exists for reasons of logic. Capt. Mal is not much of an atheist (even talking about fictional characters I feel bad labeling people like this). He doesn't truly believe that God does not exist, he's just angry with him. So angry that he pretends God doesn't exist. Now yes, there are people like that in the world who exist and probably call themselves atheists. But I would view them as a Christian views the Westboro Baptist Church. Someone who really doesn't get it.
This may help, it may not. But I just really, really, really like talking about Firefly.0 -
It is not possible to choose not to believe. If it is then you should be able to choose to not believe in God for the rest of this afternoon and then choose to believe in him again this evening. Belief is a product of logic. Your logic tells you that God exists. My logic tells me that God does not exist. There is no choice."My parents had control over much of my life, but I decided they could not make me believe, so I chose not to believe as an act of rebellion"
I would agree with the distinction. An act of "rebellion" is an impulsive act, not the same as a logical decision. In this case, someone might initially say they "reject god" due to some event, impulse, reaction to parents, etc. At some point, they would need to reflectively and logically decide where they stood. The fact that someone might remain "fixed" in that moment of impulse does not support the idea of "rebellion" IMO, but is more indicative of a shallow belief system.
I went through a similar process in that I was raised in the RCC, but, like many in their teens and during the 1960s, started questioning the beliefs with which I was raised. At first it was on more a superficial level--e.g. getting caught up in the "hypocrisy" of the words and admonitions of priests, nuns, and worshippers vs their daily actions. Like others, I looked for alternative communities or styles of worship, within the RCC and elsewhere, that might be more meaningful for me. As I progressed through my journey, however, I outgrew my focus on external factors and had to look at the actual beliefs themselves. It was at that point that I reached the line that I had to cross--not to atheism per se, but out of the realm of any form of religious worship. (I am more of an "apathist" than anything else--meaning I don't particularly care whether god exists or not).
While I may have started the journey partly out of "rebellion", in the end it was only my conscious choice--based on my research and contemplation--that could sustain that journey.0 -
The difference is, of course, that Firefly is real.This may help, it may not. But I just really, really, really like talking about Firefly.0 -
It is not possible to choose not to believe. If it is then you should be able to choose to not believe in God for the rest of this afternoon and then choose to believe in him again this evening. Belief is a product of logic. Your logic tells you that God exists. My logic tells me that God does not exist. There is no choice.
Belief is an act of the will and intellect. A person may do things to predispose themselves to belief or unbelief. If you are suggesting that human beings are purely “determined” to their beliefs and that study, reflection, etc., cannot alter or lead to changes of belief, I think that is empirically false. There are many examples of people “coming to believe” something they rejected before (probably all of us experience this in some way or another). Mostly, I suppose, this results from a variety of factors, both internal and external. I agree that people can’t just “turn on” belief and unbelief but I do think that our openness to belief in God results from a more fundamental way of experiencing reality and that this can change through choices we make and experiences we have. For instance, a person who does not believe in God but hears a good argument or reason for belief in God may choose to study the subject more with an open attitude and then come to change their beliefs. Another may hear a good reason and then close their mind to learning more. Since I believe that human freedom is real, I don’t think a person is simply “doomed” to be an unbeliever but may determine themselves to grow into a disposition of belief.
I think you guys are actually in agreement. What he calls "choosing to believe," you call "turning on." And what he calls "logic," you call "coming to believe by study and reflection."0 -
Now on the surface both could be considered to be "atheists" but really River is the "true" atheist.
Gotcha. So, some atheists would call atheists who say they've chosen not to believe as not "true" atheists. Similar to me saying the Christians at Westboro Baptist are not "real" Christians.
The point I was making would be valid, then. There are people who claim to be atheists who say they've chosen not to believe. From my experience, it's similar to what Azdak said. They did believe, but some event happened to make them turn away/reject God. From what I'm gathering, you're saying those people aren't really atheists. Right?0 -
The interesting thing is that given different upbringings then our roles in this conversation could well have been reversed. There may be an alternative universe where I am arguing for the existence of God and winey is the atheist.I think you guys are actually in agreement. What he calls "choosing to believe," you call "turning on." And what he calls "logic," you call "coming to believe by study and reflection."0 -
The interesting thing is that given different upbringings then our roles in this conversation could well have been reversed. There may be an alternative universe where I am arguing for the existence of God and winey is the atheist.
1. Thank you for calling me winey and not whiny.
2. Even if I was brought up by atheist parents, I would hope my curiosity about the world around me would still lead me to finding God.
3. Have you ever been assigned a debate topic, but been told to argue a position which differs from what you really believe? I've been on the side of debating against the existence of God and found the exercise invaluable.0 -
Now on the surface both could be considered to be "atheists" but really River is the "true" atheist.
Gotcha. So, some atheists would call atheists who say they've chosen not to believe as not "true" atheists. Similar to me saying the Christians at Westboro Baptist are not "real" Christians.
The point I was making would be valid, then. There are people who claim to be atheists who say they've chosen not to believe. From my experience, it's similar to what Azdak said. They did believe, but some event happened to make them turn away/reject God. From what I'm gathering, you're saying those people aren't really atheists. Right?
I'm willing to call these acceptable terms. If I meet another atheist and their of the opinion that, "Yeah God's a prick and I don't need to follow any of his stupid rules!" I'd want to sit them down and have a chat with them as they've completely missed the point.
Truth is labeling is always tricky. I'm sure there are people you sit next to in church who hold religious beliefs very different from your own. This isn't AS true with atheism, as the only requirement is not believing that a supernatural deity exists, but there are still atheists of every walk of life who have beliefs very different from one another. In MY view the ones who have a clear understanding are the ones who feel that there is no believable evidence for the existence of any supernatural deity. That's how I sum up atheism, for me at least.0 -
I'm willing to call these acceptable terms.
:drinker:0 -
I'm willing to call these acceptable terms.
:drinker:
Reading back over your comment though I do want to be clear. It's not that making a conscious decision to reject God makes you a "bad" (for want of a better term) atheist. Most atheists aren't raised not believing and come to the decision on their own at some point. For me the difference is is a person calling themselves an atheist because they've looked at the evidence and don't believe god exists, or are they calling themselves an atheist because they don't "like" god. I'm in the first camp.0 -
It was tempting
1. Thank you for calling me winey and not whiny.
And vice versa for me - even if I was brought up by Christian parents, I would hope my curiosity about the world around me would still lead me to realizing God does not exist.2. Even if I was brought up by atheist parents, I would hope my curiosity about the world around me would still lead me to finding God.
However, if you look at the majority of the world - those raised by Christians remain Christian. Those raised by Muslims remain Islamic. Those raised... you get my point.
No. Isn't that ... umm ... lying? Aren't you supposed not to do that?3. Have you ever been assigned a debate topic, but been told to argue a position which differs from what you really believe?0 -
3. Have you ever been assigned a debate topic, but been told to argue a position which differs from what you really believe?
I'm assuming this is a joke. I'm talking about school assigned debate topics. You become a better debater when you know both sides of an issue as if you were defending that position.No. Isn't that ... umm ... lying? Aren't you supposed not to do that?0 -
Reading back over your comment though I do want to be clear. It's not that making a conscious decision to reject God makes you a "bad" (for want of a better term) atheist. Most atheists aren't raised not believing and come to the decision on their own at some point. For me the difference is is a person calling themselves an atheist because they've looked at the evidence and don't believe god exists, or are they calling themselves an atheist because they don't "like" god. I'm in the first camp.
I knew what you meant, and that is exactly what I was saying from the beginning of this particular issue. Some atheists do say they've chosen not to believe in God. All atheists aren't atheists for the same reasons, just as all Christians areen't Christians for the same reasons. For some athiests, the rejection of God is willful.0 -
I think I see what you're saying now. You're not talking about what an atheist is, you're talking about how someone starts to become an atheist. Someone may start believing in God but, for whatever reason, they reject that belief system. At that point they're not an atheist because they still believe in God. However, at some point they realize that they no longer believe in God and that's when they also realize that they're an atheist.I knew what you meant, and that is exactly what I was saying from the beginning of this particular issue. Some atheists do say they've chosen not to believe in God. All atheists aren't atheists for the same reasons, just as all Christians areen't Christians for the same reasons. For some athiests, the rejection of God is willful.
Personally, I never did believe in God so never went through that process.0 -
I think I see what you're saying now. You're not talking about what an atheist is, you're talking about how someone starts to become an atheist. Someone may start believing in God but, for whatever reason, they reject that belief system. At that point they're not an atheist because they still believe in God. However, at some point they realize that they no longer believe in God and that's when they also realize that they're an atheist.
Personally, I never did believe in God so never went through that process.
Exactly. I'm not saying "an atheist is a person who willfully rejects God". I'm saying *some* people willfully reject Him. My point was, no matter what "evidence" for the existence of God I try to explain, I won't get anywhere with some people because it's a matter of will and not logic and reason.
I've asked this here already, but not since you've joined the discussion, so I'll ask your opinion. I look at the reason and logic around Jesus' resurrection. To me, it is not logical that those who didn't believe Jesus was the son of God would steal his body. They could have ended Christianity right there. It doesn't seem logical to me that those believed he was the son of God would take his body, either. I know many people in history have died for their beliefs, but I don't know many who die for something they KNOW to be false. I don't see any logic in the story that He wasn't really dead and he escaped from the tomb, either. If I'm only looking at this story and use logic, Him rising from the dead and ascending into heaven, as told by prophets and Himself many times, is what makes the most sense to me. While I don't claim to understand the mystery of it all, I cannot come to any other conclusion in my mind.0 -
I think you're referring to people like me in the last several posts. I was raised Catholic. I believed in God because I was told to. I didn't know any differently. I'm 43 years old now and waver between believing, wishing I could believe, and not believing. I'm more agnostic than anything I guess. I envy those like you Patti who are so sure of your position and see the love and miracles all around you. I sometimes wish I could "find God" and be so sure. Then there are other times that I envy the true atheists as they aren't worried about heaven and hell and all that. They don't worry that when they die they'll be told "You didn't believe so you burn in hell for eternity." The logical part of me is a true atheist but the emotional side has a hard time making that leap. There are a lot of things in the Bible that I just plain don't believe.
I'm more of the mind that IF there is a God it's not the Christian God or Ganesha or Zeus but a sort of combination of all Gods and Goddesses. If I believe in a God it's a loving God - one who isn't all powerful but is really much more like a human parent. We want the absolute best for our kids. We sacrifice to do everything we can to guide them, to love them, to protect them, and to keep them happy. But sometimes we can't control what happens to them. We can't always deal with the school bully or protect them from a broken heart or even keep them from getting hurt. We love them and raise them and send them out into the world but if they ever need to come back home we help them and accept them even if they announced "I hate you! I'm running away and never coming back!" If a religion spoke of a God like that I'd be much more inclined to be willing to go to church and accept it. But I just can't comprehend the idea behind worshiping a supposedly supreme being who seems to not care about us at all. It's a bit like worshiping rats. Eww. Why would anyone do that? I don't get it.
I'm not saying that your God needs to change to fit how I want Him to be. But if I should believe that's how God is it's not up to you or anyone else to tell me I'm not a "real Christian" or that I don't know God at all. Doing that would be like the really radical fundies telling you that if you accept your homosexual child you are rejecting God or that you can't wear pants because it goes against the Bible. They can believe as they believe. You can believe as you believe. And I can believe as I want to believe and we're all still Christians if that's what we want to call ourselves.0 -
Yeah, love the gravity theory.No one can prove all the scientific theories. That's why they're theories.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I would never tell you that you're not a real Christian. I have Catholic family members who use artificial contraception and are pro-choice. I would never tell them they're not a real Catholic. I've never unfriended someone for their religious or political views. I would never disown one of my children because they were an atheist (I have a 19 year old who is agnostic). I've challenged my faith and studied it, and continue to study it. I participate in these debates to share what I've learned from years of study and personal experiences so I might be able to help others. I do not consider myself a better person than those who don't believe. I don't consider myself morally superior. I don't claim to be headed to heaven and atheists are going to hell. I just do what I can to live and proclaim my belief in Christianity.0
-
If we accept that Jesus was a real person (except, of course that his name could not have been Jesus) and that he was executed by the Romans then we must consider the miracles and the empty tomb. The most obvious answer, for me, is that they were embellishments added later to add credence to the Son of God aspect to the story.I've asked this here already, but not since you've joined the discussion, so I'll ask your opinion. I look at the reason and logic around Jesus' resurrection. To me, it is not logical that those who didn't believe Jesus was the son of God would steal his body. They could have ended Christianity right there. It doesn't seem logical to me that those believed he was the son of God would take his body, either. I know many people in history have died for their beliefs, but I don't know many who die for something they KNOW to be false. I don't see any logic in the story that He wasn't really dead and he escaped from the tomb, either. If I'm only looking at this story and use logic, Him rising from the dead and ascending into heaven, as told by prophets and Himself many times, is what makes the most sense to me. While I don't claim to understand the mystery of it all, I cannot come to any other conclusion in my mind.
There is no mystery to the empty tomb because there was no empty tomb in the first place.0 -
If we accept that Jesus was a real person (except, of course that his name could not have been Jesus) and that he was executed by the Romans then we must consider the miracles and the empty tomb. The most obvious answer, for me, is that they were embellishments added later to add credence to the Son of God aspect to the story.I've asked this here already, but not since you've joined the discussion, so I'll ask your opinion. I look at the reason and logic around Jesus' resurrection. To me, it is not logical that those who didn't believe Jesus was the son of God would steal his body. They could have ended Christianity right there. It doesn't seem logical to me that those believed he was the son of God would take his body, either. I know many people in history have died for their beliefs, but I don't know many who die for something they KNOW to be false. I don't see any logic in the story that He wasn't really dead and he escaped from the tomb, either. If I'm only looking at this story and use logic, Him rising from the dead and ascending into heaven, as told by prophets and Himself many times, is what makes the most sense to me. While I don't claim to understand the mystery of it all, I cannot come to any other conclusion in my mind.
There is no mystery to the empty tomb because there was no empty tomb in the first place.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts on it as well.
I can also completely understand the appeal of an all-loving being who gives your life a purpose. I admit that the idea that we all came from nothing, with essentially purposeless lives besides the purpose that we give them ourselves, and will die and be gone forever, isn't necessarily as appealing.0 -
mab and brunner-
The entire Christian movement was based on the claim of the empty tomb and the appearances of the risen Jesus. This is obvious from the earliest New Testament documents. It is only stubborn unbelief and skepticism that would deny that this was the earliest claim of Christians (See I Corinthians 15:1ff as an example). Your position would lead to the notion that the earliest "Christians" created facts out of thin air after the fact, impressed countless others with their willingness to suffer and even die for their "fake" stories, and that no one was left around who could debunk the story to the satisfaction of others. All of this is based on what? Your unwillingness to believe? Do you have any "proof" that the biblical writers were people lacking in integrity? That they willingly deceived others? That they were men of questionable character? Everything we know points in a very different direction.0 -
You asked for my option. I don't believe in the empty tomb in the same way that I don't believe that Muhammad rode on a flying horse.mab and brunner-
The entire Christian movement was based on the claim of the empty tomb and the appearances of the risen Jesus. This is obvious from the earliest New Testament documents. It is only stubborn unbelief and skepticism that would deny that this was the earliest claim of Christians (See I Corinthians 15:1ff as an example). Your position would lead to the notion that the earliest "Christians" created facts out of thin air after the fact, impressed countless others with their willingness to suffer and even die for their "fake" stories, and that no one was left around who could debunk the story to the satisfaction of others. All of this is based on what? Your unwillingness to believe? Do you have any "proof" that the biblical writers were people lacking in integrity? That they willingly deceived others? That they were men of questionable character? Everything we know points in a very different direction.0
