Why Theists call atheism a Rejection of God

There is more to this. We need to be careful in how in particular a person accounts for their faith.

Are they talking about a cause-effect relationship, or are they actually talking about something that for them goes without saying (and they never experienced it as a matter of cause and effect)?


When a theist tries to explain matters of faith to an atheist, the theist may sometimes make amends in the hopes to make himself understandable to the atheist; but in that process, may introduce concepts that are extraneous to how he came to his faith, or extraneous to the doctrine he is presenting.

A common example of this are Christians who justify their faith on archaeological etc. findings. E.g. "They found an old shroud; x-ray imaging showed an interesting impression that could only have come into being if the person wrapped into the shroud was levitating. Thus, this is proof that the person in the shroud was Jesus, and the Bible is true, and this is why I believe the Bible."
X-ray imaging has nothing to do with Christian doctrine.

Purely theistic preaching tends to be barely comprehensible, and atheists tend to experience it as dogmatic, dictatorial.

My issue with atheism is a particular passivity, reactivity that is inherent to it, a kind of victim mentality.
I've commented on this before.

I used to have that same attitude too. It can take on many forms - "Why can't I know the truth about God, while everyone around me seems to be so sure?" - "I need to figure out which religion is the right one, or I'll burn in hell for all eternity." - "I need others to tell me what the truth about God is." - "I need to figure it out all on my own." - "I'll never understand this." - "I already understand it all." - "There is no way to get along with theists." - "I hate theists because they have something I don't have." - "My life is pointless and there is nothing I can do about it." - "How could I get myself to believe what they do?" - "I need to be like ... or I'll never be happy and successful." - "Theism is just a form of Stepford wivery."
and so on.

At the risk of sounding proud, I dare say I have to some extent overcome these attitudes. I couldn't really tell how, though. I do know that I have thought, read and posted about this a lot.

It's not exactly a matter of "accepting it." We are used to see it in terms of "I accept this tenet / I don't accept this tenet" but as far as I understood, it is not about that.
It's kind of difficult to explain this in Western terms ...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That wouldn't be just a "rejection of sorts," it would be a real rejection.

Sure.

Sure. But that doesn't mean that the theist approves of it or believes it is final.

Here's the thing: What do you want from the theist? What do you believe the theist owes you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes it does, just not necessarily in the direction either of them wanted to go. It leads to a mutual understanding of the other's position, which can help inform other discussions, and it certainly helps avoid hours of pointless exchange in a vain attempt to persuade the other.

Most atheists couldn't care less that theists consider them to have "rejected" God. There is no genuine concern.
The concern would come if that theist then tries to force the atheist not to "reject" God... but then the concern isn't with what the theist thinks but with the way the theist acts upon that thought.

Then you are left with the first option - or each side beating their head against opposite sides of the brick wall.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My answer to both questions is: nothing.

 

I do not know if any god exists, but I also do not know of any valid evidence that suggests he/she/it does exist. I have concluded that it is not at all likely that any god exists. Of course, every theist agrees with me, except for their own god, of course. Atheism is the equivalent of saying "I don't believe you", not "You are wrong"(though I may or may not believe that to be true, it is only a belief, not a certainty). Or, put another way "I don't accept what you claim to be true as actual truth", not "What you claim to be true is false".

 

if you have never encountered a scriptural commentary your research musn't have been very thorough ...

Kind of like saying you have concluded all pregnant women are virgins, except for the single occasion that landed them pregnant.

Yet the moment you try to explain the "actual truth" of religious claims (according to atheism) is the moment you establish a knowledge based claim that automatically renders theism false.

IOW you are prohibited from the onset from ever having the hope of approaching the subject due to your own values.

:shrug:

 

How are scriptural commentaries "evidence" of God's existence?
And what do you understand by "evidence"?

 

But are you comfortable with this or not?
Does it require you a rationalization to say that "Nothing"? Do you feel that that "Nothing" comes with a feeling of resignation?
Do you think it should be otherwise (for example, that theists should care more about non-theists)?

 

Ditto to Wynn's question: How are commentaries, written by Man, evidence of a God rather than the more mundane, such as their imagination?

Flawed analogy, given the vast evidence where pregnancy does not result. In fact there is so much evidence that your analogy describes the exception rather than the rule.

"according to atheism"?? There is no "according to atheism" - merely "according to individiduals" whose only necessary commonality with another such individual is their lack of belief in the existence of God.
Most atheists don't try to explain the "actual truth" - only their subjective interpretation, and that they don't metaphorically or literally see anything, but that they don't deny the possibility.

Much like one is prohibited from walking off a cliff due to the value they place on gravity.
You might persuade someone to make that leap if you stood where they are supposed to land.
But to encourage them while standing next to them... and merely to point where they are to land? :shrug:

 

Since I have never met in person or otherwise encountered a theist who I believed had knowledge of an actually existing God, and since I am atheistic with respect to the sort of God that such theists claim to have knowledge of anyway, I do not consider theists to have anything to offer above and beyond anyone else, all other things being equal. So it's simply not a dilemma for me.

 

They outline the practice

SB 1.2.18 By regular attendance in classes on the Bhägavatam and by rendering of service to the pure devotee, all that is troublesome to the heart is almost completely destroyed, and loving service unto the Personality of Godhead, who is praised with transcendental songs, is established as an irrevocable fact.

 

Allright.

But this is hardly useful for the atheists.

In other words, there seems to be no bridge (e.g. in the form of an analytical argument) that would lead a run-of-the-mill person to seeing value in what is popularly known as "belief in God."

And it seems that atheists are looking for such a bridge.

 

of course not since atheism has a requirement for the rejection of god

It seems to work fine.

Plenty "run of the mill people" bridge it.

... that's debatable ....

 

Some atheists certaintly seem to be looking for that bridge.

 

"Outlining the practice" is not evidence of existence.
I could give you a handbook that outlines the practice for X. When you attempt it and fail to see the end results I can then revert to "Ah, your practice was sub-standard!"
And then you rely on mere authority to accept this as truth. :shrug:

This is not "evidence" of God, but evidence that "loving service unto the Personality of Godhead... is established as an irrevocable fact."

i.e. it is saying that through regular attendance in class... and rendering of service to God, it is an irrevocable fact that you are indeed giving service to God.

Hmmm - regular attendance in a class on the Celestial Teapot certainly establishes as an irrevocable fact that you are attending such a class. But it doesn't make the CT any more real.

"Believe to believe"

 

This is where James' criteria for what constitutes a genuine option come in:

When people are acting on a genuine option, there is no reason for cynicism, dismay or any other negativity.

It's when we do things that
1. we don't actually consider all that important to us (ie. they are not momentuous for us, but trivial),
2. when we experience them as avoidable (ie. we believe that we will probably do just as well if don't do or get that thing),
3. when those options are not actually available to us, or are available only to a very limited extent,
that we end up bitter, negative.

And if we look at the usual definitions of "God," we see how this makes perfect sense.

Do you really believe that this kind of attitude as you show above can help you discover aything important?

 

Oh I like that Wynn . Yeah a lot . Have you been following the whisper thing ? Un real . People are so sensitive it blows my mind . The power of God in our hands dear . That you could have some would make my day complete.
I been torching my wife with erotic tales while she is sleeping . They are having major effects on her . Ah yeah big time . At first I didn't think she could her Me . It was just the vibration of my lips . No sound and the lights are off also . A first my erotic tails were not well defined and seriously taboo . Well she said she could hear me and could not believe the things I was saying . Now she pretends she does not hear the vibration and looks forward to more story's.
She also talks plain and clear in the hidden language as a way to communicate her deepest desires . Things you don't even tell your priest. She is reaching out to Me more too . That is a good thing . Makes Me feel loved .
The whisper on the wind is what people perceive as god and they act accordingly by the winds command. That is what I have learned from torturing my wife's sexual sensitivity . I got needs. Thanks to Klown . Fuck Klown you upset my boat bro . For the better . I am becoming more happy than ever so fuck it . I had no idea I had needs like that . Carnal . Extreme .

 

Translation:
Indoctrination, brainwashing, and hypnotic music can make one believe nonsense.

 

Oh, I have no issue with people acting on a genuine option - as long as they do so in the privacy of their own home, with consenting adults.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My cynicism stems from being told that such an option is self-evident, obvious etc, yet supported by nothing than logical fallacies (such as strawmen, appeals to authority etc) and analogies that often border on the laughable rather than just misleading.

It makes perfect sense that thinking you're doing X to Y establishes as an irrevocable fact that you think you're doing X to Y. It does not make Y necessarily true, nor is even evidence of Y.

And again, definitions do not equate to truth of existence... merely to truth of existence of the concept being defined. But concepts are not the real thing.

It works for me.
Highlighting the logical fallacies helps weed out the drivel, which I do not find to important as it confuses, obfuscates and derails.
Once you have weeded out the unimportant, whatever is left is important (or at worst neutral if not working on a digital measure of un/importance).

But then what I find important may be very different to what you find important.

 

It is not that I reject God - it is actually a bit more fundemental than that - I reject the concept of God.