Why can't theists accept that atheist exist?

[Jolly_Penguin]

This is a trend I have noticed in a ton of theists. They say that atheists reject God, rebel against God, are unfaithful to God. It is right there in the words "Infidel" and "Kaffir" (one who rejects). What is the reason behind this?

I tell them that I can't be rejecting or rebelling against God, because I see no God to reject or rebel against. I can't be unfaithful or infidel towards something that doesn't exist... but they simply won't accept that.

Is admitting that people exist who don't believe in God a threat to their own belief?
Is it merely because the holy books and preachers say it, so they believe it?
Is it just such an alien concept to them that they are actually incapable of contemplating it?
It it to justify their hatred or prejudice towards us? They have to project that we are against them?
Is it a combination of the above?
Is it something else?

 

[Underseer]

It has to do with their warped understanding of epistemology (why things are true or not true).

Since to them the existence of their imaginary friend is undeniable, there must be some outrageous explanation for why atheists fail to accept their conclusion. To do otherwise would involve admitting to themselves that the conclusion is anything but undeniable.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But couldn't they just conclude that we are stupid or spiritually blind or something?

 

[DBT]

Faith is inherently a state of uncertainty (unless the believer is delusional).

Not having a sound foundation, the things that are believed need constant reinforcement through fellowship and general agreement to bolster that which is held on faith, to show that what one believes to be true, is indeed true.

Atheists are of course the spanner in the works...so how to deal with them? The strategy mentioned in the OP is but one way of dealing with the threat to faith.

 

[Underseer]

But couldn't they just conclude that we are stupid or spiritually blind or something?

They do. Still not enough to make the uncomfortable feeling of cognitive dissonance go away, hence all the other bizarre arguments about desires being related to the validity of truth claims.

- - - Updated - - -

Faith is inherently a state of uncertainty (unless the believer is delusional).

Not having a sound foundation, the things that are believed need constant reinforcement through fellowship and general agreement to bolster that which is held on faith, to show that what one believes to be true, is indeed true.

Atheists are of course the spanner in the works...so how to deal with them? The strategy mentioned in the OP is but one way of dealing with the threat to faith.

I don't think you understand something basic about most theists. To them, faith is a valid path to the truth. It is not an admission of uncertainty, it is an admission that they accept conclusions without good reason to do so.

Many go even further and insist that evidence and reason are inferior paths to the truth.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Paul tells us that who is elect and who is reprobate has been decided from the beginning of things by God, the Great Potter. If they don't like atheism, they should complain to the manufacturer of all things who predestined all.

 

[DBT]

I don't think you understand something basic about most theists. To them, faith is a valid path to the truth. It is not an admission of uncertainty, it is an admission that they accept conclusions without good reason to do so.

Many go even further and insist that evidence and reason are inferior paths to the truth.

I didn't say that it was an admission of uncertainty by the theist. Nor did I say that theists don't consider faith to be a valid path to the truth.

I said that uncertainty is present regardless of admission or denial of uncertainty....unless the believer is delusional.

That faith and doubt are the flip sides of the same coin has been recognized for a long time.


''He whose Faith never Doubted, may justly doubt of his Faith.” Robert Boyle. (circa 1650)

''Faith means doubt. Faith is not the suppression of doubt. It is the overcoming of doubt, and you overcome doubt by going through it. The man of faith who has never experienced doubt is not a man of faith.'' Thomas Merton

 

[Underseer]

I don't think you understand something basic about most theists. To them, faith is a valid path to the truth. It is not an admission of uncertainty, it is an admission that they accept conclusions without good reason to do so.

Many go even further and insist that evidence and reason are inferior paths to the truth.

I didn't say that it was an admission of uncertainty by the theist. Nor did I say that theists don't consider faith to be a valid path to the truth.

I said that uncertainty is present regardless of admission or denial of uncertainty....unless the believer is delusional.

That faith and doubt are the flip sides of the same coin has been recognized for a long time.


''He whose Faith never Doubted, may justly doubt of his Faith.” Robert Boyle. (circa 1650)

''Faith means doubt. Faith is not the suppression of doubt. It is the overcoming of doubt, and you overcome doubt by going through it. The man of faith who has never experienced doubt is not a man of faith.'' Thomas Merton

They are certain. Absolutely certain. Wrong, but absolutely certain.

Obviously, there are moderate theists who understand that they can't really prove what they say, but here in the USA, most of the Christians I actually talk to are radicalized evangelicals who are 100% certain that everything they believe is completely, absolutely true.

How can they be absolutely certain of their truth claims? Because they used faith to get the answers, and faith is the superior path to the truth. Atheists and scientists use the inferior path to the truth of evidence and reason, and thus are not 100% certain of anything, which proves that we are wrong about everything.

See how it works?

They are confused about what is true because they are confused about why things are true. They really think it is virtuous to accept conclusions without evidence. Further, they think that is the only possible way to achieve absolute truth.

 

[DBT]

I didn't say that it was an admission of uncertainty by the theist. Nor did I say that theists don't consider faith to be a valid path to the truth.

I said that uncertainty is present regardless of admission or denial of uncertainty....unless the believer is delusional.

That faith and doubt are the flip sides of the same coin has been recognized for a long time.


''He whose Faith never Doubted, may justly doubt of his Faith.” Robert Boyle. (circa 1650)

''Faith means doubt. Faith is not the suppression of doubt. It is the overcoming of doubt, and you overcome doubt by going through it. The man of faith who has never experienced doubt is not a man of faith.'' Thomas Merton

They are certain. Absolutely certain. Wrong, but absolutely certain.

Yet many theists freely admit to periods of doubt. Hence, their faith is not an example of absolute certainty. The condition of believing that something is true without sufficient evidence generates doubt. Unless, as I said, the theist is indeed delusional.


Tillich, for example, argues that ''doubt is included in every act of faith. The dynamic concept of faith helps to explain the interaction between faith and doubt. Every act of faith recognizes that there may be a possibility for doubt.''

“Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith.” - Paul Tillich

Obviously, there are moderate theists who understand that they can't really prove what they say, but here in the USA, most of the Christians I actually talk to are radicalized evangelicals who are 100% certain that everything they believe is completely, absolutely true.

How can they be absolutely certain of their truth claims? Because they used faith to get the answers, and faith is the superior path to the truth. Atheists and scientists use the inferior path to the truth of evidence and reason, and thus are not 100% certain of anything, which proves that we are wrong about everything.

See how it works?

They are confused about what is true because they are confused about why things are true. They really think it is virtuous to accept conclusions without evidence. Further, they think that is the only possible way to achieve absolute truth.

The public face of theists, the certainty they may display, is not necessarily an indicator of what they feel when they are alone. Just scratch a bit deeper.....

 

[Tigers!]

This is a trend I have noticed in a ton of theists. They say that atheists reject God, rebel against God, are unfaithful to God. It is right there in the words "Infidel" and "Kaffir" (one who rejects). What is the reason behind this?

I tell them that I can't be rejecting or rebelling against God, because I see no God to reject or rebel against. I can't be unfaithful or infidel towards something that doesn't exist... but they simply won't accept that.

Is admitting that people exist who don't believe in God a threat to their own belief?

No

Is it merely because the holy books and preachers say it, so they believe it?

Like you all I have are my 5 senses. From that I need to determine what in the world is going on. I believe that God exists based upon my sensory information and my pondering upon that information.

Is it just such an alien concept to them that they are actually incapable of contemplating it?

If you mean am I incapable of contemplating the existence of atheists then no. Atheists exist.

It it to justify their hatred or prejudice towards us? They have to project that we are against them?

I don't recall having any hatred or prejudice towards you or your ilk. No more than you would feel against theists.

Is it a combination of the above?

See above

Is it something else?

Is what something else?

 

[jonatha]

This is a trend I have noticed in a ton of theists. They say that atheists reject God, rebel against God, are unfaithful to God. It is right there in the words "Infidel" and "Kaffir" (one who rejects). What is the reason behind this?

Is it just such an alien concept to them that they are actually incapable of contemplating it?

This, IMHO.

I fully expect that, once the structure of the brain is sufficiently well understood (probably not in my lifetime), it will be possible to demonstrate the existence of certain neural connections whose absence (or possibly presence, or possibly some combination thereof) is necessary and sufficient for religious belief (or the lack of it).

 

[James Brown]

When you've been raised to believe that not believing in God is A) absurd and B) extremely dangerous, it makes sense that they would look at atheists with incredulous horror. I'd have the same reaction if someone said, "I don't believe that cars can kill, so I'm going to play in the street."

 

[GenesisNemesis]

They want everyone to believe what they believe and to drown out the opposing view, because it's "evil". Pretending like your opposition does not exist is one way to attempt to achieve that.

 

[Tigers!]

They want everyone to believe what they believe and to drown out the opposing view, because it's "evil". Pretending like your opposition does not exist is one way to attempt to achieve that.

How is that, in essence, different to atheists trying to drown out the opposing view because they don't like it or think it is wrong?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

They want everyone to believe what they believe and to drown out the opposing view, because it's "evil". Pretending like your opposition does not exist is one way to attempt to achieve that.

How is that, in essence, different to atheists trying to drown out the opposing view because they don't like it or think it is wrong?

We're not trying to legislate morality. Also we don't claim you're going to be punished for eternity because you're not an atheist. If theists would stop trying to violate separation of Church/state and stop being psychologically abusive, there probably wouldn't be any problems with them.

 

[fromderinside]

They want everyone to believe what they believe and to drown out the opposing view, because it's "evil". Pretending like your opposition does not exist is one way to attempt to achieve that.

How is that, in essence, different to atheists trying to drown out the opposing view because they don't like it or think it is wrong?

None I guess if you are willing to stipulate empirical evidence = evil.

 

[Underseer]

Had to post this video because it's the funniest refutation of this particular argument used by theists.

 

[Underseer]

They want everyone to believe what they believe and to drown out the opposing view, because it's "evil". Pretending like your opposition does not exist is one way to attempt to achieve that.

How is that, in essence, different to atheists trying to drown out the opposing view because they don't like it or think it is wrong?

Explaining to you why your arguments do not support your conclusions is not the same thing as trying to suppress the expression of your opinion. Your sense of privilege is Brobdingnagian in scope.

 

[Tigers!]

We're not trying to legislate morality.

Of course you do. When you allow or disallow, certain behaviours, you are legislating morality.

Also we don't claim you're going to be punished for eternity because you're not an atheist.

If you were I would be suprised.

If theists would stop trying to violate separation of Church/state and stop being psychologically abusive, there probably wouldn't be any problems with them.

Oh good. You'll then stop telling the church or its members what to do or how to behave.

- - - Updated - - -

None I guess if you are willing to stipulate empirical evidence = evil.

I miss what you are trying to say here.

 

[Atheos]

Enacting legislation to prevent Homosexual couples from marrying is a classic example of legislating morality. It is a law that panders to the religious beliefs of the majority of constituents in various states without regarding the basic violation of human rights involved. Legal marriage provides many tangible benefits not available to people who are not married and these benefits are withheld from same-sex partners for no other reason than it offends the religious beliefs of certain people who happen to be able to form a cohesive majority.

In a not-too-distant past, requiring children in public schools to listen to daily bible readings and participate in a morning prayer was commonplace. This practice was sanctioned by law in many states. I'm sure the legislators did so with all good intention, believing it was in the best interests of the children. We've come a long way, but there is still a way to go.