Why is non-belief so terrible?

[Borel]

I gotta go now, but I'll be answering again in a couple of hours.

 

[PastorJim]

Well, the only way I can avoid hell is by faith, isn't it? So practically I am.

No, you're not. People go to Hell as a punishment for their sins, not for "non-belief".

You can only see God behind the creation of the universe if you first assume God exists.

I disagree. I don't have to know who the architect is or believe he exists to reason that a building must have had a designer.

So has probably every Christian. Are you evil?

Yes. I am evil. We all are. Without God's hand restraining us, any of us could make Hitler look like a Boy Scout.

The Christian just won't get punished, solely because of his faith.

I disagree. The Bible says that it is not our faith that saves us, but the object of our faith, in this case, Christ and His atonement on our behalf.

 

[MARK777]

Just to clarify I was not refering to people on here who are giving their viewpoint on the Christian life, but rather the ammount of lies that are out there with regards to Christianity, I see that we all come to God from many different angles, and all start our walk from a different start point but all end up at the same place when we follow God by means of his Spirit.

Its great to see that you are willing to seek God and pray that you will come to the understanding that we as Christians have arived at

 

[havana16]

Hi Borel just found this posting I just wanted to add that we as believers have a real hope which lies in Jesus Christ. It gives us strebghth and patience and endurance for the ride called life We have hope of a new and better life free from death forever! God is real He dwells in your heart and spirit once you accept Him! I pray you will find God soon Bless you!

 

[Angeloffire]

Why must that 'way' be faith? Because of that most of humanity won't get to him. If he made it clear he existed and accepted those who accepted him, that, I think, would be better. If faith is the only way to return to this supposed god, then lots of good people are living in a worse place just because of their unbelief.

Anyway, thanks for your post.

Borel,

Everyone has faith and moves from faith. Even believing He doesn't exist is faith in action.......it isn't that we as humans don't have any, but that it is misplaced.

What happens is that people actually don't know Him. If people knew how kind and humble God really is and how he patiently waits for His own creation to seek Him out, then your heart would break. He isn't bossy, rude, cruel, or pushy. He's quiet, kind, gentle, and humble.

He says that he dwells with those who are contrite and humble...

Isa. 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

If He were to scare you to death with His power, would this make you love Him or want to be with Him?


Blessings,

AOF

 

[Borel]

No, you're not. People go to Hell as a punishment for their sins, not for "non-belief".

Sure, I go to hell for my sins, but the reason I won't get saved is because of my lack of faith.

I disagree. I don't have to know who the architect is or believe he exists to reason that a building must have had a designer.

What exactly in the nature suggests design? On the contrary, millions of lifeless planets suggest the contrary. However, i don't think this is the place for that argument.

Yes. I am evil. We all are. Without God's hand restraining us, any of us could make Hitler look like a Boy Scout.

Ok...

I disagree. The Bible says that it is not our faith that saves us, but the object of our faith, in this case, Christ and His atonement on our behalf.

Sure, it's not faith that saves us, but faith is needed to save us, right?

 

[Borel]

Just to clarify I was not refering to people on here who are giving their viewpoint on the Christian life, but rather the ammount of lies that are out there with regards to Christianity, I see that we all come to God from many different angles, and all start our walk from a different start point but all end up at the same place when we follow God by means of his Spirit.

Its great to see that you are willing to seek God and pray that you will come to the understanding that we as Christians have arived at

Ok. And thanks.

 

[Borel]

Hi Borel just found this posting I just wanted to add that we as believers have a real hope which lies in Jesus Christ. It gives us strebghth and patience and endurance for the ride called life We have hope of a new and better life free from death forever! God is real He dwells in your heart and spirit once you accept Him! I pray you will find God soon Bless you!

Thanks for the good-mooded post.

 

[Borel]

Borel,

Everyone has faith and moves from faith. Even believing He doesn't exist is faith in action.......it isn't that we as humans don't have any, but that it is misplaced.

What happens is that people actually don't know Him. If people knew how kind and humble God really is and how he patiently waits for His own creation to seek Him out, then your heart would break. He isn't bossy, rude, cruel, or pushy. He's quiet, kind, gentle, and humble.

He says that he dwells with those who are contrite and humble...

Isa. 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

If He were to scare you to death with His power, would this make you love Him or want to be with Him?


Blessings,

AOF

I would 'love Him and want bo be with Him' if I believed in him and his benevolence.

---------
Thanks for your post.

 

[m0rk]

I agree the Bible is some evidence, although not nearly enough.

It's all we have to work with, outside our personal experience. It covers pretty much the whole of human experience to minute detail, being relevant to every generation, and remaining true alongside increased human understanding and progress. Not enough.. hmmm

Unfortunately you don't get personal experience until you believe. Well, you don't realise what evidence their is until you believe I'd suggest.

 

[Angeloffire]

I would 'love Him and want bo be with Him' if I believed in him and his benevolence.

---------
Thanks for your post.

I found the easiest coolest way to sit in His presence and hear directly from Him and to know the truth about oneself.......is that something that you might be interested in?

 

[Ryft]

Except when that someone would tells you you deserve to burn in Mount Doom forever for whatever reason. That would be a little disturbing, not because I'm worried it's true.

Even then I would find it amusing, Borel, not disturbing. If someone accused me of being an infidel for rejecting the mercies of Sauron and that consequently I deserve to burn forever and ever in the unquenchable fires of Mount Doom, it would take some restraint on my part not to burst out laughing! Why? Because I do not believe on any level that either Sauron or Mount Doom exist. I might feel some degree of pity for them because they're afflicted by this delusion. But concern? No, none at all.

When atheists express authentic concerns like you have, it tells of a measure of belief on some level, often in their subconscience—which is a good thing, don't get me wrong. I'm not trashing atheists who demonstrate a subconscious level of belief. I have met countless atheists who demonstrate this. And I am talking about a 'subconscious' level. You see, when they are talking about God, they are very clear about their unbelief. But when they are not talking about God specifically and consciously, what they say on other matters (like hell, or ethics, etc.) exhibits a small but interesting degree of inconsistency that tells of what's going on at the subconscious level—which by definition they do not access or engage consciously. The inconsistencies bring up what their conscious thinking doesn't.

(Also, experience has taught me that atheists found on message boards typically represent a minor segment of those who generally self-identify as atheists, the atheist on-the-street, as it were, who are considerably less concerned about towing some party line and exhibit dramatically less bigotry.)

Why because of unbelief? Why is it even a sin? Why is unbelief the obstacle to being saved when I can't even control it?

You are too fixated on the belief/unbelief issue, Borel. I don't know what your experiences have been but I am becoming increasingly convinced that your encounters with the Christian faith have largely been with evangelical Christians (i.e., individuals). I have not yet detected any indication that you have studied Christian philosophy in its own right; in other words, that the sum of your knowledge has essentially been derived from personal anecdotes or non-academic sources—like the thoughts and opinions of individuals you have been harvesting right here.

If you would study Christian philosophy itself, by reading the literature from Christian scholars or engaging people who have a strong academic grasp of it, you would discover that 'belief' is not the essential point you think it is. Christian philosophy is several orders of magnitude more intricate, coherent, in-depth, and relevant than Sunday School talking points like "I'll go to heaven if I believe." Belief is important, of course, but it is nowhere near a central hub. And it is in nature quite a different thing from faith. They are not even similar. The Devil believes God exists, but he's definitely not going to heaven.

As it has been pointed out here, by me and others, one does not go to hell because of unbelief. You need to do more than acknowledge this; you need to accept that it's the answer, so that you are not found a few posts from now asking the same question. Let it sink in. One does not begin from some imaginary 'neutral' starting point and move to the 'condemned' camp because of unbelief. They were in the condemned camp the entire time because of sin—all mankind is—and they stayed there because of unbelief, which is just one out of countless sins. We all have the same starting point: condemned. Only in Christ does anyone leave it.

Unbelief is not the obstacle to being saved. So what is? You are. It is the illusion of human autonomy that people are brainwashed with. Your belief that you are an autonomous human being is the obstacle to being saved, and it is an unquestioned doctrine that people are brainwashed with by a relentless curriculum of question-begging rote. In other words, it's a doctrine one should be embarrassed to hold. But, unfortunately, too many people are not even aware of this baseless doctrine they harbor, never mind thinking of questioning it.

As long as you believe that you're an autonomous human being and continue to harbor beliefs and convictions (e.g. knowledge, morality, reason, etc.) that are likewise autonomous, you stand firmly and willfully behind this obstacle to salvation. If you are open-minded and concerned about sound reason, your task should be to question this fallacious and baseless doctrine you have been brainwashed with—question why you believe it, question where it came from, question whether or not it has any merit, question why you can hold this belief without any supporting evidence but for some reason need supporting evidence for other beliefs, and so forth.

Could you explain what exactly faith is?

Certainly. But I suspect this is not the place for such an explanation, since it detracts from the general theme of the thread you started. I will say two things: (a) I'd be willing to discuss it with you via private message, and (b) I would really encourage you to study academic sources on the subject, rather than asking individual Christians what they think (and I could suggest a couple of starting points in such a discussion). You could receive confusing answers BECAUSE they are not academically trained on the subject.

Individual Christians are a great resource for testimonies of their personal experiences with God and faith but they are not exactly a reliable source for the finer points of Christian theology. If you conduct a survey at any random Christian church (e.g. Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, Methodist, etc.), you will find that only a fraction of a percent of the congregates have studied or possess a strong academic grasp of Christian theology, or church history, or Christian philosophy. Generally they are retail clerks, teachers, truck drivers, businessmen, software programmers, etc., who have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Most of them are not theological scholars. If I want to understand one of the fundamental forces in nature (e.g. the strong nuclear force), I would be better served by studying a specific textbook on the issue or asking an astrophysicist, than asking someone who enjoyed science in high school.

Can we choose our evidentiary critera however we want and honestly accept the changes in our worldview that follow, or do we choose the one that makes the most sense to us?

What you need to understand is that "makes the most sense" IS precisely one of the criteria. Listen, there are multiple layers to a person's epistemic system, some more fundamental than others. On one level you have the 'evidence' issue, but underlying that is the more fundamental 'reason' level, and downward it goes until you reach the basic presuppositions upon which the whole system rests and is derived from (e.g. human autonomy).

At every point it is a matter of choice. What you're struggling with is the idea that you cannot simply change some belief 'X' in favour of some competing view 'Y' on the subject of 'evidence'. But why can't you change? Because it would contradict one of the more basic epistemic assumptions which undergirds that 'evidence' framework. You COULD change your 'evidence' criteria but it would require a change at a more foundational level first. There can be a dramatic change in what you know when you make changes in what you assume.

My point is that we can't control our beliefs. If we could, I could at any time believe whatever I wanted.

You DO believe whatever you want. That is precisely the point. The reason you cannot just simply choose to believe in Sauron is because you don't want to believe in Sauron (for whatever reasons you might have). Everything you believe is what you choose to believe. I believe the milk carton is in the fridge. I do not resist that belief; I choose to believe it, based on solid epistemic reasons.


~ Ryft

 

[Borel]

It's all we have to work with, outside our personal experience. It covers pretty much the whole of human experience to minute detail, being relevant to every generation, and remaining true alongside increased human understanding and progress. Not enough.. hmmm

Unfortunately you don't get personal experience until you believe. Well, you don't realise what evidence their is until you believe I'd suggest.

Well, it's not enough. And I can't just start believing in something and only afterwards learn it actually makes sense.

 

[Borel]

I found the easiest coolest way to sit in His presence and hear directly from Him and to know the truth about oneself.......is that something that you might be interested in?

Exactly how do you 'sit in his presence and hear directly from him'?

 

[Borel]

Even then I would find it amusing, Borel, not disturbing. If someone accused me of being an infidel for rejecting the mercies of Sauron and that consequently I deserve to burn forever and ever in the unquenchable fires of Mount Doom, it would take some restraint on my part not to burst out laughing! Why? Because I do not believe on any level that either Sauron or Mount Doom exist. I might feel some degree of pity for them because they're afflicted by this delusion. But concern? No, none at all.

Well, I guess that's a difference between us. I just don't like the idea of someone believing I should be eternally tortured. It would, of course, also be amusing.

When atheists express authentic concerns like you have, it tells of a measure of belief on some level, often in their subconscience—which is a good thing, don't get me wrong. I'm not trashing atheists who demonstrate a subconscious level of belief. I have met countless atheists who demonstrate this. And I am talking about a 'subconscious' level. You see, when they are talking about God, they are very clear about their unbelief. But when they are not talking about God specifically and consciously, what they say on other matters (like hell, or ethics, etc.) exhibits a small but interesting degree of inconsistency that tells of what's going on at the subconscious level—which by definition they do not access or engage consciously. The inconsistencies bring up what their conscious thinking doesn't.

It's not like I am concerned of the thought of burning in hell, it's about the fact that my fellow man honestly thinks I should.

(Also, experience has taught me that atheists found on message boards typically represent a minor segment of those who generally self-identify as atheists, the atheist on-the-street, as it were, who are considerably less concerned about towing some party line and exhibit dramatically less bigotry.)

I suppose I can agree with you there. As long as you're not refering to a specific 'atheist found on a message board'.

You are too fixated on the belief/unbelief issue, Borel. I don't know what your experiences have been but I am becoming increasingly convinced that your encounters with the Christian faith have largely been with evangelical Christians (i.e., individuals). I have not yet detected any indication that you have studied Christian philosophy in its own right; in other words, that the sum of your knowledge has essentially been derived from personal anecdotes or non-academic sources—like the thoughts and opinions of individuals you have been harvesting right here.

If you would study Christian philosophy itself, by reading the literature from Christian scholars or engaging people who have a strong academic grasp of it, you would discover that 'belief' is not the essential point you think it is. Christian philosophy is several orders of magnitude more intricate, coherent, in-depth, and relevant than Sunday School talking points like "I'll go to heaven if I believe." Belief is important, of course, but it is nowhere near a central hub. And it is in nature quite a different thing from faith. They are not even similar. The Devil believes God exists, but he's definitely not going to heaven.

As it has been pointed out here, by me and others, one does not go to hell because of unbelief. You need to do more than acknowledge this; you need to accept that it's the answer, so that you are not found a few posts from now asking the same question. Let it sink in. One does not begin from some imaginary 'neutral' starting point and move to the 'condemned' camp because of unbelief. They were in the condemned camp the entire time because of sin—all mankind is—and they stayed there because of unbelief, which is just one out of countless sins. We all have the same starting point: condemned. Only in Christ does anyone leave it.

Unbelief is not the obstacle to being saved. So what is? You are. It is the illusion of human autonomy that people are brainwashed with. Your belief that you are an autonomous human being is the obstacle to being saved, and it is an unquestioned doctrine that people are brainwashed with by a relentless curriculum of question-begging rote. In other words, it's a doctrine one should be embarrassed to hold. But, unfortunately, too many people are not even aware of this baseless doctrine they harbor, never mind thinking of questioning it.

As long as you believe that you're an autonomous human being and continue to harbor beliefs and convictions (e.g. knowledge, morality, reason, etc.) that are likewise autonomous, you stand firmly and willfully behind this obstacle to salvation. If you are open-minded and concerned about sound reason, your task should be to question this fallacious and baseless doctrine you have been brainwashed with—question why you believe it, question where it came from, question whether or not it has any merit, question why you can hold this belief without any supporting evidence but for some reason need supporting evidence for other beliefs, and so forth.

I suppose I see where you are coming from. Hmm... baseless doctrine...
Ok, sorry...
So acceptance of the fact that one is not autonomous, and acceptance of Jesus Christ as the son of God and our savior is required for salvation? But does not accepting something require we believe it exists? In that case, unbelief would still be the obstacle to salvation.

Certainly. But I suspect this is not the place for such an explanation, since it detracts from the general theme of the thread you started. I will say two things: (a) I'd be willing to discuss it with you via private message, and (b) I would really encourage you to study academic sources on the subject, rather than asking individual Christians what they think (and I could suggest a couple of starting points in such a discussion). You could receive confusing answers BECAUSE they are not academically trained on the subject.

I'm willing to do (a) and, if you could provide some general suggestions where to start, (b).

Individual Christians are a great resource for testimonies of their personal experiences with God and faith but they are not exactly a reliable source for the finer points of Christian theology. If you conduct a survey at any random Christian church (e.g. Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, Methodist, etc.), you will find that only a fraction of a percent of the congregates have studied or possess a strong academic grasp of Christian theology, or church history, or Christian philosophy. Generally they are retail clerks, teachers, truck drivers, businessmen, software programmers, etc., who have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Most of them are not theological scholars. If I want to understand one of the fundamental forces in nature (e.g. the strong nuclear force), I would be better served by studying a specific textbook on the issue or asking an astrophysicist, than asking someone who enjoyed science in high school.

I see.

What you need to understand is that "makes the most sense" IS precisely one of the criteria. Listen, there are multiple layers to a person's epistemic system, some more fundamental than others. On one level you have the 'evidence' issue, but underlying that is the more fundamental 'reason' level, and downward it goes until you reach the basic presuppositions upon which the whole system rests and is derived from (e.g. human autonomy).

At every point it is a matter of choice. What you're struggling with is the idea that you cannot simply change some belief 'X' in favour of some competing view 'Y' on the subject of 'evidence'. But why can't you change? Because it would contradict one of the more basic epistemic assumptions which undergirds that 'evidence' framework. You COULD change your 'evidence' criteria but it would require a change at a more foundational level first. There can be a dramatic change in what you know when you make changes in what you assume.

I think I see where you're coming from.

You DO believe whatever you want. That is precisely the point. The reason you cannot just simply choose to believe in Sauron is because you don't want to believe in Sauron (for whatever reasons you might have). Everything you believe is what you choose to believe. I believe the milk carton is in the fridge. I do not resist that belief; I choose to believe it, based on solid epistemic reasons.


~ Ryft

So, you're saying that the reason I can't believe in a god is because I don't want to belive in one? Because I see no reason I wouldn't want to believe in a god.
And why can't a child who has just been told Santa doesn't exist still believe in Santa? I'm sure he/she wants to.

--------
Once again, thanks for a good post.

 

[m0rk]

Well, it's not enough. And I can't just start believing in something and only afterwards learn it actually makes sense.

As Ryft has said, if you read it without prejudice, you may work out for yourself the evidence. That's how it usually works. You follow reasoning of those facts to arrive at your decision.

I wasn't saying you had to believe first without it making sense to you. Just that evidence in the form of personal experience happens after you believe.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Ryft]

I just don't like the idea of someone believing I should be eternally tortured . . . It's not like I am concerned of the thought of burning in hell, it's about the fact that my fellow man honestly thinks I should.

The conflict is one of competing moral systems. Your discomfort results from the fact that this person thinks you are (a) wicked and (b) deserve eternal condemnation, because you deny both of those ideas. Ergo, competing moral systems; i.e. under the moral system he subscribes to you are wicked, but under the moral system you affirm you're not wicked.

So now here's the question you need to ask yourself thoughtfully: "How do I know he's wrong, without assuming the truth of my own position which would commit the question-begging fallacy? Can I argue that he's wrong without committing this fallacy?" If you cannot, then isn't that something that needs scrutiny?

I suppose I can agree with you there. As long as you're not refering to a specific 'atheist found on a message board'.

Hahaha! No, I was not making a reference to you. The opposite, in fact—I was trying to indicate that I was not talking about you specifically or the atheists on this board, that my comments (about the 'subconscious' point) result from my countless experiences with atheists generally within my social sphere, elsewhere online and in real life. Atheists on this board, yourself included, COULD insist that they don't identify with my point, that they don't see it reflected in their own lives. But to such a contention there are three responses: (a) it is incoherent to raise an objection from the 'conscious' experience to an argument about a 'subconscious' issue, (b) their objections do nothing to negate the experiences I've really had with countless atheists, and (c) exceptions prove the rule; i.e., the existence of an exception points to the existence of a rule. If I encounter ten atheists and one of them denies my point, he becomes the 'exception' to what the other nine showed to be the 'rule'.

Hmm... baseless doctrine...

Correct. If you subject it to scrutiny, that's what you'll find out.

(Provided, of course, that you do so with a learned Christian philosopher; "learned philosopher" because someone without the relevant philosophical education will not be able to identify or articulate what your metaphysical assumptions are nor undercut them; "Christian" because if you and a fellow atheist examine the issue then it's unlikely you will know HOW to scrutinize the issue because you are both caught inside of it, both of you operating from the very assumptions needing scrutiny. It takes a vantage point from outside the box to help you see the view from there.

So acceptance of the fact that one is not autonomous, and acceptance of Jesus Christ as the son of God and our savior is required for salvation? But does not accepting something require we believe it exists? In that case, unbelief would still be the obstacle to salvation.

Forget salvation at this point, Borel. You want to understand that issue but you are nowhere near ready to. It does not and cannot make sense to you because you are trying to reason from an autonomous worldview that does not enable you to reason legitimately. That is the profound weakness which cripples your position—and at this point you're not even aware of that yet. You still think that your worldview functions legitimately and intelligibly, and as long as you believe that you will be incapable of accepting ANY features of a competing worldview, even at the most basic levels.

To be capable of accepting the merits and strengths of a competing view, you have to accept the illegitimacy and weaknesses of your own. If you're convinced that your view is correct, all other views will be seen as incorrect wherever it contradicts yours. See the moral problem I described at the beginning of this post; you cannot accept that you're wicked as long as you think that your moral system, which vindicates you, is intelligible and legitimate. There is also the ontological example: as long as you're convinced that the physical universe and everything in it is all that exists, you will be incapable of accepting that any transcendent thing can truly exist.

In order to accept an alternative view of reality, you need to recognize that yours is weak and inadequate, and I'm not sure you do. I'm not sure you have ever examined a competing view WITHOUT first presupposing the truth of yours. You need to question that presupposition without using it.

So, you're saying that the reason I can't believe in a god is because I don't want to belive in one? Because I see no reason I wouldn't want to believe in a god.

It's imprecise to say that you don't want to believe in God. It's true that you don't, but it's more precise to say that you don't want to believe immaterial things can exist, that something which transcends our spatio-temporal dimensions can be said to exist. And you don't want to believe that because (a) it directly contradicts your metaphysical assumptions about reality (b) which undergirds your epistemic system by which you address such issues (e.g. "Show me independently verifiable evidence that God exists").

And why can't a child who has just been told Santa doesn't exist still believe in Santa? I'm sure he/she wants to.

It's a competition of desire, with the stronger desire winning out. Just because I desire a healthy diet more, that does not preclude my desire for double-fudge chocolate cake. She desires to believe Santa exists, but she has a stronger desire to have a mature view of reality. The latter wins out over the former.

By the way, the existence of Santa is not in any way analogous to the existence of God. Two extremely different questions. I know what your point was, but I just wanted to underscore that anyway.

I'm willing to do (a) and, if you could provide some general suggestions where to start, (b).

My inbox is open any time.

Once again, thanks for a good post.

Thank YOU for asking such intelligent questions and being this open to answers.


~ Ryft

 

[chilehed]

Sorry if this has been asked before.

My question is: "Why is non-belief so terrible?" Why should it earn you eternal torture?

It doesn't earn that.

Especially as your god hasn't left any clear indicators that he even exists?

Actually, he has.

...My point is, I am not evil.

Who said you are?

And, it's not like I choose not to believe. I can't control it.

Sounds like a very common issue with understanding the definitions and distinctions between belief, faith, evidence and proof.

Because I've never encountered anything in my life that would indicate the existence of a supreme deity (especially a specific deity) I find it very hard to believe in one. I understand if someone heard a voice from the skies or something like that and concluded a god was behind it (not commenting on if I would find such evidence satisfactory), but I have never encountered anything that would give me a reason to believe in a god.

I'd suggest that perhaps you just didn't recognise them for what they were.

I can understand punishment (although not eternal torture or anything like that) to someone who believes your god is real and still turns their back to him and worships the devil...

That's actually pretty close to orthodox Catholic theology (other than the part in parenthesis).

 

[Borel]

As Ryft has said, if you read it without prejudice, you may work out for yourself the evidence. That's how it usually works. You follow reasoning of those facts to arrive at your decision.

I wasn't saying you had to believe first without it making sense to you. Just that evidence in the form of personal experience happens after you believe.

Hope that makes sense.

I see where you're coming from.

However, if only believers have personal experiences it isn't nearly as strong evidence as if a nonbeliever had an experience regarding a god.

 

[Borel]

The conflict is one of competing moral systems. Your discomfort results from the fact that this person thinks you are (a) wicked and (b) deserve eternal condemnation, because you deny both of those ideas. Ergo, competing moral systems; i.e. under the moral system he subscribes to you are wicked, but under the moral system you affirm you're not wicked.

So now here's the question you need to ask yourself thoughtfully: "How do I know he's wrong, without assuming the truth of my own position which would commit the question-begging fallacy? Can I argue that he's wrong without committing this fallacy?" If you cannot, then isn't that something that needs scrutiny?

I guess I can't. Mine just makes more sense to me.

Hahaha! No, I was not making a reference to you. The opposite, in fact—I was trying to indicate that I was not talking about you specifically or the atheists on this board, that my comments (about the 'subconscious' point) result from my countless experiences with atheists generally within my social sphere, elsewhere online and in real life. Atheists on this board, yourself included, COULD insist that they don't identify with my point, that they don't see it reflected in their own lives. But to such a contention there are three responses: (a) it is incoherent to raise an objection from the 'conscious' experience to an argument about a 'subconscious' issue, (b) their objections do nothing to negate the experiences I've really had with countless atheists, and (c) exceptions prove the rule; i.e., the existence of an exception points to the existence of a rule. If I encounter ten atheists and one of them denies my point, he becomes the 'exception' to what the other nine showed to be the 'rule'.

I see where you're coming from. I guess I can't prove it then, can I?

Correct. If you subject it to scrutiny, that's what you'll find out.

(Provided, of course, that you do so with a learned Christian philosopher; "learned philosopher" because someone without the relevant philosophical education will not be able to identify or articulate what your metaphysical assumptions are nor undercut them; "Christian" because if you and a fellow atheist examine the issue then it's unlikely you will know HOW to scrutinize the issue because you are both caught inside of it, both of you operating from the very assumptions needing scrutiny. It takes a vantage point from outside the box to help you see the view from there.

I see.

Forget salvation at this point, Borel. You want to understand that issue but you are nowhere near ready to. It does not and cannot make sense to you because you are trying to reason from an autonomous worldview that does not enable you to reason legitimately. That is the profound weakness which cripples your position—and at this point you're not even aware of that yet. You still think that your worldview functions legitimately and intelligibly, and as long as you believe that you will be incapable of accepting ANY features of a competing worldview, even at the most basic levels.

To be capable of accepting the merits and strengths of a competing view, you have to accept the illegitimacy and weaknesses of your own. If you're convinced that your view is correct, all other views will be seen as incorrect wherever it contradicts yours. See the moral problem I described at the beginning of this post; you cannot accept that you're wicked as long as you think that your moral system, which vindicates you, is intelligible and legitimate. There is also the ontological example: as long as you're convinced that the physical universe and everything in it is all that exists, you will be incapable of accepting that any transcendent thing can truly exist.

In order to accept an alternative view of reality, you need to recognize that yours is weak and inadequate, and I'm not sure you do. I'm not sure you have ever examined a competing view WITHOUT first presupposing the truth of yours. You need to question that presupposition without using it.

My position is agnostic atheist, so it's not like I'm convinced there's no god. But if I'd have to choose between yes or no (and nothing else) to the existence of a god, it would be no at this point, so i guess you're kind of correct.

It's imprecise to say that you don't want to believe in God. It's true that you don't, but it's more precise to say that you don't want to believe immaterial things can exist, that something which transcends our spatio-temporal dimensions can be said to exist. And you don't want to believe that because (a) it directly contradicts your metaphysical assumptions about reality (b) which undergirds your epistemic system by which you address such issues (e.g. "Show me independently verifiable evidence that God exists").

Yeah, I guess I could agree with you. Thanks for pointing that out.

It's a competition of desire, with the stronger desire winning out. Just because I desire a healthy diet more, that does not preclude my desire for double-fudge chocolate cake. She desires to believe Santa exists, but she has a stronger desire to have a mature view of reality. The latter wins out over the former.

By the way, the existence of Santa is not in any way analogous to the existence of God. Two extremely different questions. I know what your point was, but I just wanted to underscore that anyway.

I see. None of my arguments really hold, do they?

My inbox is open any time.

I'll remember that.

Thank YOU for asking such intelligent questions and being this open to answers.


~ Ryft

Well, it's a pleasure to discuss these things with you.