Why Theists call atheism a Rejection of God

I think not. His view may be baised, but he has been doing this and other philosophy for a long time now. He does understand what he's talking about.

Carlin's third commandment. For this alone, I totally like you.

I understand that you [like most theists] emphasise the value of personal experience, but most atheists try to be objective about this, for them the lines between reject and non-acceptance are clearly drawn. The proof is necessary, because no child ever believes just because he is told to. The sermons and the books and experience all provide subjective evidence and proof.

No, he is saying that believing the truth is not a choice. Gravity is true and there is no choice of belief in that. Similiarly, if God is proven, we would Know He exists, we dont have to just believe, we truely know and can prove it as such.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They're just weird like that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am saying he fundamentally fails to understand a key concept of faith. That makes the rest of what he says nonsense. Garbage in, garbage out. That is true no matter who he might be.

I'm sorry, did I say I was a theist? Why would you make that assumption? Are you suggesting that because I actually understand religious beliefs, I must be religious? I have been religious. That doesn’t mean I am now.

That is your paradigm and you are certainly entitled logically to require scientific evidence for a belief. But that doesn't address the original point. He addresses what he sees as a point of confusion about the concept of rejection, when in fact the confusion is his. The problem is the paradigm in play - the believer's or the pragmatic's. Believers by definition do not consider your paradigm to be valid. You don't consider their paradigm to be valid. You can cite the success of science as the basis for your demands. They will cite inborn knowledge and goodness - the spirit of God - that you simply deny. Their claim cannot be falsified by your paradigm, so it becomes a matter of faith. So it is a choice. Believe it or not. The believer will tell you that by praying and communing with God, you will learn to know his presence. So they would claim your position is based in ignorance.

You can never prove they are wrong. And contrary to his entire thesis, the author rejects the notion of God and is therefore making a faith-based argument. He clearly states that what believers call the voice of God, is really just all in their heads. That assumes that God does not exist. His argument is therefore a statement of faith. He can't argue that he's not rejecting the very notion of God [as believers hold to be true], while saying it's all just in their heads. The bias and flawed logic, and the contradiction is painfully obvious.

Belief certainly is a choice. There is nothing that constrains a leap of faith, no matter what that belief might be. You can also choose to require scientific evidence for belief. That is a choice. That so many people believe so many crazy things makes this self-evident.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Will you ever get to New York, if you forever stay in Los Angeles?

 

He doesn't have to understand religion to represent a dysfunction. He need only connect the syndrome to its cause.

Theresa doesn't feel imposing either.

...which does not apply to an atheist...

and believing in false truth affects the ego

and within them, so they feel rejected. And they respond dysfunctionally.

Christ also said not judge, nor to cast stones.

yet it should be provable, so Theresa's in a bind, frustrated

his argument centers on Theresa's thinking errors and self-image problem

 

Are you familiar with William James' theory of belief?

 

Even if you forever stay in LA, does that prevent you from knowing about NY?
You see, the stay isnt permanent and you dont need to be in NY to know about it.

 

I guess you have no problems with long-distance relationships, eh.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, he rejects blind faith as enough to believe.

I didn't say you were. I know that you are not, I have read your earlier post. I was saying that you agreed with theist on that matter.

Agreed. You have hit on the exact problem between a theist and an atheist. Do tell me though, do you have any suggest so that it may be circumvented and a a/theists may have useful and conclusive debates/conversations? Btw, the choice exists, it indeed is a leap of faith, but the point is that both sides are not neutral - the scales are tipped towards the atheists. In fact, this may in fact be the correct reason for " inborn knowledge and goodness" and why prayer works for yourself. I do believe that redefining and rearranging the semantics of the two paradigms can open the doors to a useful debate between a/theists.

No. The difference between weak and strong atheism is very important here. All weak atheist reject religious deities but they are open to the idea of god. Religious deities can be proven, to a high probablility, to not exist. Also, the assumption is not a matter of faith, its a hypothesis to see if the model fits. Its a tentative rejection to see if the model of rejection is better than the model of acceptance. If it is, the person becomes a atheist, if not, he remains a theist. If you consider that questioning god is taboo and against faith, I cant help you there.

No. Belief is a choice only if the proof is not prima-facia. If the proof becomes certain, the choice becomes one of acceptance or denial, not of choising one belief over another. That hasn't happened so far as far as god is concerned, which is another reason why atheists cannot be in denial or rejection of God.

 

Please dont drift. How does being an atheist forever stop you from discovering the existence or non-existence of God? An atheist would accept God if god is proven to exist, but a theist might not give up God even if he is proven to not exist. Is atheism the better position until the question of God is settled? No taboos, no subjective baises, etc. We can be agnostic apatheists till then, but it would still we atheism in practice and I think that is the right path to take.

 

Who was it again that claimed to be neither a theist nor an atheist?

Oh, and wynn? How about replying to Sarkus's post?

 

An atheist doesn't do anything to come closer to God. Thus, an atheist is set up to never discover the truth about God.

"Proven" by whom, on what terms?

Atheism without taboos? Atheism without subjective biases? Are you kidding?!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You just love Stalin, don't you? His No man, no problem policy is just so feasible, isn't it.

That is magical thinking: A person is in effect an atheist, and then - poof - magic - and God or proof of God appears and the atheist is convinced, right there on the spot, and becomes a theist.
This is how you envision to become a theist?

 

Sometimes, I act as if God exists. Other times, I act as if God doesn't exist.

"Theist" and "atheist" are not necessarily the kind of qualifiers as "US citizen" or "Caucasian" or "born in Berlin, Germany".
"US citizen" is a qualifier that pertains to the person 24/7, for as long as they are legally a citizen of the US.
One is "Caucasian" 24/7/365, for one's whole life, same as it is always true for a person that they were born in Berlin.

"Theist" and "atheist", however, are for all practical intents and purposes qualifiers like "awake," "asleep," "hungry," "full" etc. Ie. they express a fluctuating or otherwise inconstant quality.

I have nothing to comment on it. What are you interested in?

 

Actually, he rejects faith. To say blind faith is somewhat redundant and suggests that he would be open to some other form of faith, which I'm sure isn't true. But I think you are still missing my point. He can't completely reject a philosophy, and then say he doesn't reject it. So either his position is based on a contradiction, or it is based on confusion about what people believe.

It's probably best to say I am open to the possibilities.

Imo, one cannot engage in fruitful logical debate regarding ultimate truths such as the existence of God, or not. Faith isn't based on logic so there is no common frame of reference. And while I agree with the essence of your point regarding neutrality, in a sense, the situation is doubly unbalanced. While the atheist can claim the logical high ground, I have never [or at least very rarely] met one who can speak intelligently about religion based on a personal religious experience. If you've never had a religious experience, then it is pretty difficult to understand the perspective of someone who has. But to fully experience faith, one has to be willing to surrender their heart to God completely. This is the first requirement to experience God directly. By definition [according to the faithful] this can't be faked. So if an atheist wants to level the playing field, they should test faith by becoming truly religious, which course isn't going to happen. So the argument becomes, “you must accept my logic, but I refuse to test your claim”.

Okay, that is yet another new twist on the definition. Where did you get this?

I have no idea what you mean. Could you provide a specific example?

From a religious perspective, that is as good as rejection. Again, from the position of the pragmatic, this is logic. From a religious perspective, it is a failure to accept God. The challenge in faith is to have faith without proof. That is the whole point! The very notion of a hypothesis for testing violates the premise of religion. The two ideas are fundamentally incompatible. If you could test for God there would be no need for faith. Our “test” on earth, our reason for existing here on earth, would have no meaning [according to common beliefs]. But beyond that, either you believe or you don't. That is a choice. One can simply decide to believe, or not. He chooses not to believe. Apparently he claims that he could believe if provided evidence. In that case, he would have to say "It might all be in your head, but I could be wrong".

Yes, that is the entire point. You can’t have a God that demands faith, that can also be tested. The ideas are mutually exclusive.

If you have proof, belief is not required. That is knowledge. Your position is that belief and knowledge are the same thing; that belief is only possible with knowledge? You really don't believe anything that you don't know for a fact? I would say that is impossible.

How can he claim that faith is all in your head, while at the same time say he isn’t rejecting the notion of God? Is he only suggesting that it might all be in your head? He doesn’t state that. He states it as fact. That is a clear choice. I think you are confusing your position with his.

 

The word "theist" describes someone that believes in god [accepts god].
The word "atheist" describes someone that does not believe in god [some of whom reject god (and that's taking "rejects god" as a positive claim that god exists)].
That's irregardless of how they act by the way.
It's not that difficult.

I'm not that happy with your choice for the word "reject" as it suggests that the person is aware of gods existence.

So what's it for you?
And remember:

His reasoning and example prove your absolute claim that "an agnostic acts as if there is no God" wrong.
So perhaps you should retract it..

 

Probably because it's a rather accurate description. Atheists typically deny that god(s) exist in general. And in Christian countries, they are usually most interested in the particular denial that the Christian god exists. They often take a very critical view of the history of religion and have a minimalist view of the role that religion should play in their societies.

Of course some theists act as if the existence of their god is simply a given. (It's their faith!) And from that starting point, they imagine that atheists are sinners who are trying to escape their god's inevitable judgement. So they assume that deep down in their hearts of hearts, atheists believe in the Christian god just like Christians do, and imagine that the atheist is trying to run away from God's moral demands, pretending that they don't exist.

So the theists will occasionally be spinning the idea of the atheists' rejection of their god in a way that few atheists would accept or even recognize.

 

You tell me what you think the word 'God' means, and I'll tell you if I accept it, reject it, or maybe something else.

As I've written before, I'm much more favorable to some ideas of 'God' than to others. I think that the Biblical Yahweh, the Quranic Allah and the Hindus' Vishnu, Shiva and Krishna are just mythical figures from traditional religious stories and I'm almost certain that none of these characters has a real existing referrant. I don't have a clue about any philosophical first-cause or unmoved-mover. And I'm kind of inclined to think that there probably is some fundamental ground of Being, but again, I don't have a clue what it is.

 

Does anyone here legitimately feel like they have rejected Bigfoot?

QFT.

 

why is this not obvious ?

 

I won't even bother to open a link to a video designed to make money for the person posting it.

Sorry. If that isn't what you meant, then try looking up big words before you use them.

Rich