Again... I don't see what that has to do with the OP or my question in it. I asked why they refuse to acknowledge that we don't believe. Why do they not call us defective and spiritually blind unable to see what is obvious to them, instead of disobedient and in rebellion against that which we don't think exists? Attacking us because we fail to bow down tot heir authority figure is a whole other matter and not the topic of this thread.
-
Features
Why can't theists accept that atheist exist?
- Thread starter Jolly_Penguin
- Start date
Again... I don't see what that has to do with the OP or my question in it. I asked why they refuse to acknowledge that we don't believe. Why do they not call us defective and spiritually blind unable to see what is obvious to them, instead of disobedient and in rebellion against that which we don't think exists? Attacking us because we fail to bow down tot heir authority figure is a whole other matter and not the topic of this thread.
Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
You're (or at least most atheists seem to be) willing to learn the truths of science through study, despite the fact that scientific understanding has quite visibly emerged out of ignorance.
You accept various scientific truths without verifying them for your selves, based on trust of scientific authorities, based on the assumption that their same joy in finding truths assures that the truths they share are actually truths. Mistakes are accepted as part of progress.
You also are not born with the mathematical, linguistic, and physical knowledge required to understand all scientific concepts, but you're willing to accept "expert opinions" without making sure they are correct until the time that you have sufficient understanding to evaluate the "expert opinions", and then you can agree or disagree with them based on your own understanding.
However, you don't apply this same knowledge to religion, and the many out of focus interpretations of what and who God is or was. You accept a steadily increasing scientific understanding of nature (from the time you were a child), but not a steadily increasing theological understanding of God (from the time you were a child).
Atheists believe that incorrect scientific teaching (creationism) will lead people towards ignorance of true science, yet do not accept that incorrect theological teaching leads towards ignorance of God, and rather cite all the incorrect teachings as evidence that God does not and/or never did exist.
Atheists accept that people make deliberate, flagrant, public, well publicized mistakes in natural understanding (David Avocado Wolfe comes to mind) for various reasons, but don't reject scientific understanding from the authorities they respect.
Atheists accept that people make deliberate, flagrant, public, well publicized mistakes in theological understanding (Pat Robertson's apparent gaffe gaffs come to mind) for various reasons, and reject all teachings about God because of it.
I suppose the whole thing could be seen as a joke, from certain perspectives.
However, the answer to your question is that from the perspective of some theists, atheists are intellectually dishonest. From the perspective of others, they are creative, expressive beings.
abaddon
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,386
David Wolfe promotes anti-science woo, he goes beyond just making mistakes, so the contrast with Pat Robertson is extremely lame. All the contrasts in your argument are lame because you talk as if scientists are lone individuals when actually their hypotheses must survive a climate of hostility; that’s a damn good sign the information is trustworthy if it survives that. You talk as if there’s anything remotely comparable in theology, but the evidence I've seen is theology relies on attempts at logic where their own definitions of their own terminology are used to decide how reality is.
You’re saying atheists reject God or fail to allow the possibility because they’re biased in what they choose to believe? but at least the choices are "creative, expressive" choices (and that's supposed to level the playing field, I guess)? If any theologists have at least a workable hypothesis of God then the hostility to the worst ideas ought eventually to reveal the “correct teachings”, as is done with hypotheses in science. If you know whatever their correct teachings are then can you describe them?
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
You're projecting your bias again, Kharrie. Atheists do not believe there ARE correct theological teachings of any of the gods. That's what atheism actually means.Kharakov said:
There seems to be a deeply embedded intellectual roadblock stopping theists from understanding or accepting that atheists really are atheists and really don't believe God exist. Why that is remains a fascinating question for me. Would it really threaten or undo a theists faith to acknowledge that some people don't see what they see and believe what they believe? Calling us spiritually blind or defective would be one thing. But it is quite another to declare that we must believe,and be lying about it, and that we really do believe in God and hate him, etc.
Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
Situational context matters.
skepticalbip
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 7,304
- Basic Beliefs
- Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
How is an atheist's lack of belief in gods any different from someone who does not believe in Saint Nick. It is understandable why some people believe in either gods or Saint Nick and some people believe in both but some people don't believe in Saint Nick and some people don't believe in gods... some believe in neither.
Theists apparently can't accept that atheists don't believe in the theist's god because it is so obvious to theists that their god is real so they assume that atheists are just rebelling so they can do "nasty things". Likely it is so obvious to believers in Saint Nick that he is real that they can't imagine that everyone doesn't know too, so anyone who claims not to believe must only be saying that so they can be "bad little boys and girls".
Theists apparently can't accept that atheists don't believe in the theist's god because it is so obvious to theists that their god is real so they assume that atheists are just rebelling so they can do "nasty things". Likely it is so obvious to believers in Saint Nick that he is real that they can't imagine that everyone doesn't know too, so anyone who claims not to believe must only be saying that so they can be "bad little boys and girls".
They pretend they don't believe in Santa because that'll get them coal in their stocking, and coal is a valuable commodity in this shrinking economy.
abaddon
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,386
I might even understand that.
(And all the rest of this post assumes that I’ve understood what you wrote, but it’s just a guess).Context is why, in convos where we’re all being persnickety about terminology regarding “theist” vs. “atheist” vs. “agnostic”, et al, I choose igtheist (atheist will do when we’re being more general). By it I do not mean “There are no meaningful defs of God” but rather I mean “you need to tell me what you mean before the convo goes any farther”. If they answer with something stupidly anthropomorphic, then I take an antitheist stance toward their view. If they answer with something maybe more "whiteheadian" then I’m intrigued and will concede I agree that reductivism can cause people to miss the bigger picture (but I remain personally averse to the word “God” due to its more traditional associations).
But what I don’t get is, if you’re ok with talking god with (other?) theists and comprehending their meaning in context, why - when talking with atheists - contrast it with science such that “If you do this with science then you should do it with theology too”. Science isn’t contextual so I’m not getting how it could serve as a good contrast against theism. If I were theist I’d keep it in another “magisteria” altogether from science. And I do rather agree with the non-overlapping magisteria idea, it’s just that many theists seem not to, instead they turn theism into a scientific question by saying “This is really real and not just my way of summarizing up some holistic viewpoint” that is a serious strategic error and philosophical blunder on their part.
- - - Updated - - -
They think of God as obvious. To not see god means you’re not seeing the obvious. There has to be a reason to miss something so obvious, therefore you’re actively blocking the obvious out. Why would people do that? It must be fear or hate or convenience.
ETA: But then how obvious it really is to them is something I question. It’s possible they insist the non-obvious is obvious and therefore, to make that SEEM true, they must say all opponents are rejecting the obvious. The others’ rejection makes their acceptance seem like a very positive and openminded achievement, available to others if they'd do the same but don't cuz of obstinacy.
Last edited:
Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
Deliberately refined duplicity in that statement I made. <-- That's a pun too...I might even understand that.
You were very creative in your interpretations of my posts.
Ramaraksha
Member
Aaah and i thought i was very clear
You are talking to a slave mind - a slave/servant who hopes to be rewarded by his master with the good life in heaven. Everyone must kneel to the master - those that do not kneel are traitors and must be punished
Your last sentence made no sense - you asked why they attack you, why they refuse to acknowledge that you don't believe, calling you defective and blind - did i not make sense with my answer above?
God is a dictator here - a master - think North Korea - can you boldly go around north korea mocking the "dear, loving leader"? Do you think anyone will dare befriend you when you talk like that?
These religions were born when Kings ruled with an iron fist - these were not democratic times - these ideas came from those primitive times
You are confused because you live in a democracy, we have free speech now - you can rail against the sitting president but nothing will happen to you. Try doing that in North Korea or Russia, you get your legs broken
Underseer
Contributor
I've read many deconversion stories, including a lot from that epic thread from these forums a few name-changes ago.
Anyway, it surprises me just how many Christians are deeply affected by the Problem of Divine Hiddenness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief
Some deconverts (including Matt Dillahunty) mention that the Problem of Divine Hiddenness was one of the most difficult arguments against god back when they were believers. This always surprised me. Out of all the arguments against their beliefs, why is this one among the most devastating? I would expect the lack of valid arguments or evidence to be much more of a concern, but it turns out that the mere existence of atheists is the most difficult to dismiss argument against god for many theists.
Is it any wonder that so many of them insist that we are lying when we say we don't believe in god? If they can convince themselves that there are no actual atheists, then they don't have to worry themselves about the Problem of Divine Hiddenness.
Anyway, it surprises me just how many Christians are deeply affected by the Problem of Divine Hiddenness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief
Some deconverts (including Matt Dillahunty) mention that the Problem of Divine Hiddenness was one of the most difficult arguments against god back when they were believers. This always surprised me. Out of all the arguments against their beliefs, why is this one among the most devastating? I would expect the lack of valid arguments or evidence to be much more of a concern, but it turns out that the mere existence of atheists is the most difficult to dismiss argument against god for many theists.
Is it any wonder that so many of them insist that we are lying when we say we don't believe in god? If they can convince themselves that there are no actual atheists, then they don't have to worry themselves about the Problem of Divine Hiddenness.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,280
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
There is an old latin saying, used as a motto by a number of people and groups - notably the Dukes of Saxe-Römhild, who were not as much like the Dukes of Hazard as one might imagine - for several centuries,
Si deus pro nobis, quis contra nos? which roughly translates as "If God is with us, who can be against us?"
Of course, the idea is that God is with us; and that as a result, we will be victorious against our enemies; But the logic works both ways - if someone is against us, then clearly God cannot be with us. If we have enemies, then either God is not taking sides at all, or He is powerless to smite them - Neither of which is in accordance with what most churches and sects claim for their Gods.
That one simple motto, to me provides perhaps the strongest argument there is that Gods, as described by most believers, cannot be real.
Of course, one solution to the problem this presents is to simply declare that those who oppose you don't really exist.
Si deus pro nobis, quis contra nos? which roughly translates as "If God is with us, who can be against us?"
Of course, the idea is that God is with us; and that as a result, we will be victorious against our enemies; But the logic works both ways - if someone is against us, then clearly God cannot be with us. If we have enemies, then either God is not taking sides at all, or He is powerless to smite them - Neither of which is in accordance with what most churches and sects claim for their Gods.
That one simple motto, to me provides perhaps the strongest argument there is that Gods, as described by most believers, cannot be real.
Of course, one solution to the problem this presents is to simply declare that those who oppose you don't really exist.
Thanks. This directly speaks to my question and answers it pretty well. I think this answer makes a lot of sense actually. I have often made this very argument to theists and yes, the defence is always something along the lines of either a bad free will argument or this here claim that I can't really not believe.
Underseer
Contributor
I trust you already know how easy it is to dismantle those free will arguments.
DBT
Contributor
Far easier than it is getting believers to graciously accept that their cherished belief has been dismantled. That part of the task being virtually impossible.
Lion IRC
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,138
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
I don't think its an 'old latin saying'.
I think it's from the bible.
But I agree entirely with your corollary.
And that God is not always with everyone who claims got mit uns.
James Brown
Veteran Member
It's curious how both sides of an argument feel that God is with them.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,280
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Really? On what basis? Are you going to claim that it is new; not Latin; or that it has never been said?
It may well be. The people who wrote the Bible probably weren't the first to say it though - it's something that has likely been said by many different people since the very beginnings of religious belief, and probably arose independently many times. It's an obvious slogan for any group of people who believe they have a powerful god on their side.
If you agree entirely, then you must accept that any person who is opposed is not supported in his position by any gods. Including you.
The logic of the statement implies that (if we accept it), it is not necessary to lose an argument or a battle in order for your god to be shown to be fictional - the mere existence of an opposition is sufficient.
It's basically the same argument as the Problem of Evil - an all powerful god is a self refuting concept. The only way to keep a belief in god without a logical contradiction is to declare that he is not all powerful. At which point the question becomes 'why imagine him at all then'. A limited god is as much use as a Santa who leaves no gifts.
Underseer
Contributor
Faith is a virtue.
Believers love to talk about how good and noble it is to survive a "test of faith," and how impressive it is when someone clings to their beliefs no matter how many valid arguments are presented to them. That they can hold on to their beliefs no matter how valid the arguments or evidence against them is proof that their beliefs must be true.
In fact esteemed Christian apologist William Lane Craig has made that exact argument. The fact that Christians refuse to change their minds is proof that Christian beliefs are true.