Should atheists believe in the God of christianity if...

[jayem]

No, I don't agree with him, because he is an extreme liberal who rejects that God can provide us his inerrant word. He rejects the word of God because he loves his sin.

Are you not a sinner, too? Aren't we all? You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not the final arbiter of Christianity. The faith is big enough to accommodate a wide range of opinions. Claiming that a Christian clergyman rejects God's word and loves sin just because he has a different view of the Bible than you, is quite unseemly, to say the least. It actually shows an inordinate amount of pride. And as I recall, Jesus said to take the plank out your own eye, before you criticize the speck in your brother's.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

If you were God, wouldn't you make your existence obvious?

What if he already did?(adam and eve story). And lets assume that the adam and eve story was purely allegory which more and more christians believe today. We can still see the point that we would disobey God, and the result of the lack of faith in him and what he said to us. So if we were to assume under christianity that God did make his existence obvious, and there was a lack of faith in him and what he told us to do then he has every right to withdraw his existence from plain sight. And allow the world to enter its current fallen state, in which you could say our eternal fate is purely in our hands now by who we decide to follow. Do we want to follow the choice adam and eve made and believe the serpent or God? Now look I know atheists find the idea of a talking serpent ridiculous but don't miss the point of the story which is what matters here and is relevant to what we are specifically talking about here, not the actual existence of talking serpents.

And I do also want to add I do think it is more"fair" and just for us to have to go through this fallen world and make the choice to choose him freely than to be born in a world in which everyone exists with knowledge of God and we just live happily ever after. Sure that sounds better, and it seems thats what atheist want, but God wants us to choose him so he can have reciprocal love.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sure, why not? That's what's called the argument from pragmatism, which was first formulated by William James. There is a whole school of a uniquely American philosophy called Pragmatism. It is a perfectly legitimate way to approach questions of truth and how we should live our life.

The idea that truth must be unitary, universal, and absolute is more of a reflection of Greek philosophical presuppositions.

 

[FireDragon76]

So its better to increase suffering in the world to hold on to your lack of belief?

From the Christian perspective we should not merely focus on the elimination of suffering but also what is called now days "human development". Helping people to actualize their potential, especially their ability to love and be loved.

Focusing on elimination of suffering could easily lead us, for instance, to conclude that something like human extinction would be desirable. It's really a nihilistic sort of perspective, but some materialistic philosophers have taken that ethical stance. I don't happen to agree with it, though, for obvious reasons.

 

[FireDragon76]

“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life.”

― George Bernard Shaw

The ramblings of a bitter man. A broader, dispassionate analysis of the actual context of religious belief would come away with far less arrogant smugness than what Shaw presents.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

From the Christian perspective we should not merely focus on the elimination of suffering but also what is called now days "human development". Helping people to actualize their potential, especially their ability to love and be loved.

Focusing on elimination of suffering could easily lead us, for instance, to conclude that something like human extinction would be desirable. It's really a nihilistic sort of perspective, but some materialistic philosophers have taken that ethical stance. I don't happen to agree with it, though, for obvious reasons.

I agree suffering can be very beneficial but a lot of atheists use the problem of evil and suffering to reject God so I wanted to find a way to lessen that while giving them a reason to believe.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'll give you atheists credit, you fight hard for it. And have been able to articulate it in a way so that God can't exist. Well done.

I think it's very sad that your mind seems so mentally blocked/closed, that that is what you understood from what I wrote.

That isn't what I said at all. It's not even what I was talking about.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But they create a box so small that God can't fit in.

From my perspective, it rather is that you are making god so big, that it's no longer possible to find a box that this god can be fitted in.

I have the same "box" for your god as for any other thing that can be claimed.
I have just one box, and it takes evidence to enter it.

I just don't have a double standard.
Yes: double standard.

Because I submit that the types of reasons you justify your god beliefs in (appeals to faith), would never be sufficient for you when it comes to any other claim.

When I demand solid verifiable evidence from a guy who claims to have witnessed aliens...
Why wouldn't I make the same demand to a guy who claims to have witnessed a god?

The god claim is actually even a more extra-ordinary / outlandish claim then aliens.
Because you see, the existance of aliens doesn't require any rewriting or violation of natural laws.

So right out the gates, barring any evidence, aliens are a LOT more plausible then any supernatural entity.

So why one would demand LESS evidence to accept supernatural claims then to accept alien claims, is not something I can understand, nore is it a rational position to take on.

But I bet you don't buy into the many testimonies of alien abductees, right?

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

@DogmaHunter Your scope is limited to your senses. This limits what you are capable of because you have no imagination. You have no ability to imagine anything that is possible but not proven. Thats a limited mindset and way to live.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It prevents him from existing in your world framework. The burden of proof you require isn't going to happen from the christian God.

It's also not going to happen for claims that are false.
The point.

Failure to live upto a burden of proof, means that there is no valid reason to accept the claim in question as accurate.

If a personal God isn't possible for atheists like you and jayem and who else requires God to submit to your ridiculous requirements of him even allowing himself to be proven scientifically then he could never exist in the highly restricted requirements.

So..... wanting to have rational, valid reasons to accept a claim as accurate, are "ridiculous requirements"?

So tell me, do you accept the claims of alien abductees? Of people who claim to have seen bigfoot, the lochness monster, yetti's, the kraken?
No? Could it perhaps be that you also have these "ridiculous requirements" when it comes to people making bare extra-ordinary claims?

So why do you hold a double standard when it comes to your god claims?

You are asking him to do something that i think anyone who knows the bible can see why he would rather remain outside of being discovered through science.

To such statements, I always say: the only people who don't want their claims to be testable or tested, are bad salesmen.

The fact of the matter remains.... if you have untestable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable models (for whatever reason), then a rational person has exactly zero reasons to accept those models as accurate.

As I said, there is a potentially infinite amount of such models.
If "faith" is enough justification to believe your religious claims, then it should also be enough justification to believe any bare claim. Including claims of alien abductees, bigfoot spotters or the claims of any other religion.

If you say that it's only okay to appeal to "faith" in context of your religious claims, then you are engaging in a double standard and special pleading.

God wants you to discover him yourself, maybe some of you will.

This makes no sense. If god is unverifiable / untestable / unfalsifiable, then he is by definition also undiscoverable, since such an entity is without measurable / detectable manifestation.

But it's not going to come from science.

Then from where?

And to require it from him is to try to make the one who requires submission, to submit to your will and that's never happening. He doesn't owe you the discovery of his existence through science. Yes you don't owe him your faith either. And whatever happens because of this will happen, and we'll just have to see.

Or not.

I guess you'll see as well what the result is of not accepting the thousands of gods you could believe in, but don't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I agree suffering can be very beneficial but a lot of atheists use the problem of evil and suffering to reject God

I don't.
And frankly, I don't know a single one that does.

so I wanted to find a way to lessen that while giving them a reason to believe.

You haven't given a single actual reason to believe, as I clearly explained.
It's just that we seem to disagree on what valid reasons are.

But not really.... because as I pointed out as well, you apply the same standard as we do in your everyday life, for just about all claims being made, except the claims associated with your religion.

So I submit that you fully comprehend our actual objection and problem.
It's just that you hold a double standard and are trying to get us to do the same.

 

[DogmaHunter]

@DogmaHunter Your scope is limited to your senses.

By necessity. My senses are my only means to observe the world around me.
And also note that my senses aren't trusted by default.

I'm very much aware of the many many ways that my own senses (and brain) can fail me.
It's easily shown. Just google "optical illusion" and click on "images".
There you go. Hundreds and hundreds of example of your senses and brain playing tricks on you.

So, mere sense experience is not necessarily reliable enough. This is why independent and objective verifiability is important and why mere "personal experience" isn't really that reliable.

This limits what you are capable of because you have no imagination.

I have a very big imagination. I just don't assume/pretend that whatever I imagine, is also true by default.

You have no ability to imagine anything that is possible but not proven.

Sure I can. What makes you think I can't?
The point is: it's kind of important to be able to distinguish that which is actually/verifiably true, from that which is only imagined to be so.

And how does one go about that, if not by rational verifiable evidence?

Thats a limited mindset and way to live.

If you say so.
To me, it is a rational way to live.

The alternative would be the simply believe whatever anyone tells me at face value, which is about the best way to end up with false beliefs.

 

[KCfromNC]

I understand because you don't know the Bible.

My lack of knowledge in a field makes someone understand something? Wow. Now I feel a great responsibility. Or at least I would if that idea made any sense.

Apart from the grace of God, no one believes the Bible as the word of God.

That's not a reason to believe you.

Experience does not define truth.

Except for experiences of the correct version of god(s) by the right people, I'd assume.

 

[KCfromNC]

@DogmaHunter You really believe faith is useless. Faith even in the non religious sense is useful. Having faith that you will accomplish difficult goals is useless?

That's not faith, though. We have evidence that people can accomplish difficult things.

You need faith even if you aren't religious to be successful in life, because what does the atheist do when life goes bad? He either relies on faith he will make it or he quits life.

That's also not faith - there's ample evidence that not all bad things in life are fatal.

 

[KCfromNC]

I find it morally acceptable to "fake" belief if it leads to actions like studying the bible, hanging out at bible studies with christians and living a christian lifestyle.

I'm still waiting for people who claim this to "fake" it if it leads to actions like escaping the endless cycle of death and rebirth which weighs on all of us.

 

[KCfromNC]

But they create a box so small that God can't fit in.

I wish I had the power to create reality, but in fact I'm just here observing it.

 

[KCfromNC]

It prevents him from existing in your world framework. The burden of proof you require isn't going to happen from the christian God.

Why not? The framework I use has room for lots of things, and those things have little problem demonstrating they're real. How come your god is so powerless by comparison?

 

[KCfromNC]

I have a very big imagination. I just don't assume/pretend that whatever I imagine, is also true by default.

Two things I've learned from this thread

- you need to have a big imagination to accept that god(s) are real
- we can't compare god(s) with imaginary creatures like fairies.

 

[Ken-1122]

What if he already did?(adam and eve story). And lets assume that the adam and eve story was purely allegory which more and more christians believe today.

Really? Didn’t Jesus believe Adam and Eve were real people? Matthew 23:35 he even mentions the death of their son Able to make a point! Well….. but that’s a different subject.

We can still see the point that we would disobey God, and the result of the lack of faith in him and what he said to us. So if we were to assume under christianity that God did make his existence obvious, and there was a lack of faith in him and what he told us to do then he has every right to withdraw his existence from plain sight. And allow the world to enter its current fallen state, in which you could say our eternal fate is purely in our hands now by who we decide to follow.

Just because some people may reject him doesn't mean 100% will; his existence should remain in plain sight for those who will accept him IMO. I guess this is where we disagree huh?

And I do also want to add I do think it is more"fair" and just for us to have to go through this fallen world and make the choice to choose him freely than to be born in a world in which everyone exists with knowledge of God and we just live happily ever after.

A world in which everyone exists with knowledge of God, will still be a world where we make the choice to choose him freely; don’t cha think?

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

I couldn't tell you which is better, but if God exists clearly he thinks hiding his existence from plain sight is better than what you suggest he do.