Why I believe that those who want to prove God exists really don't believe he is what they claim.

[just_me]

It stands to reason that someone who believes in God would reverence him enough to follow his desires and since he has chosen to not reveal himself, I assume that it is his wish not to have it so. Those who believe in him talk about his omniscient and omnipotent. They speak of his mind as being so unfathomable that we should unerringly follow him because he is God and there is a purpose for everything he does.

If that is so, why on Earth would so many of them try to prove to others that he does exist, if he has a reason to remain the way he has, unrevealed? Do these people think they are smarter than he. Wiser than he or that he simply has made a mistake, which they are going to correct, somehow by trying to prove he exists? If they do, then doesn't that speak volumes about what they really think of God's abilities and if they think so less of those that they can step in, then how is this the God they speak of.

 

[Politesse]

I tend to agree. I don't think God wants or needs anyone to prove their existence, and would never bother with the pursuit.

Certain people are pretty motivated to prove that they are right about things, though. It's their own ego, not concern for the feelings of the subject, that drives this mental tendency.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Because they want to reveal to you God's forgiveness, grace, and love.
Because they don't want you to suffer eternal torment and emptiness at the hands of God.
What's inconsistent in that?

 

[Politesse]

Because they want to reveal to you God's forgiveness, grace, and love.
Because they don't want you to suffer eternal torment and emptiness at the hands of God.
What's inconsistent in that?

By whopping you over the head with a book, or a logical proof?

In my experience, love is best taught by example.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that there are two main reasons.

The first is that if you're a member of a religion like Christianity or something where your belief system tells you that anybody who disagrees with you will quite literally spend the rest of eternity burning in the fiery pits of Hell, there's kind of an obligation on you to convince non-believers that you're right since there's such a horrific downside waiting for them if they don't convert to your faith. If they can come up with convincing arguments for the existence of their God, they are saving people's souls and giving them an eternity of bliss instead of one of torture.

The second is that they think that non-believers are just plain wrong about something fundamental about the universe. From the point of view of a theist, talking to an atheist is the equivalent of a sane person talking to a Flat Earther. When you see someone being wrong about something so damn obvious, you want to correct them. While some can just adopt a live-and-let-live strategy, it's far more natural to be curious about how they're so incorrect about something that there's really no excuse for anybody to be incorrect about and try to educate them.

I mean, we fly planes around the fucking planet and there are currently live streaming cameras up in space filming the place, so how the hell could anybody possibly think the thing is flat? It's just weird. This is atheism from a theistic perspective. They may trust in God and be awed by his mystery and whatever other bullshit their own particular brand of crazy is preaching, but that doesn't stop their utter confusion about how fucking weird it is that these guys don't see the obvious truth that God is real. They want to let us know that we're being weird!

 

[Keith&Co.]

It stands to reason that someone who believes in God would reverence him enough to follow his desires

I think your premise is off.

I have worked for many leaders, and every single one has had at least one opinion I disagreed with, a stance I argued with or would have argued if it was appropriate (Enlisted Seamen do not tell full bird Captains that they're fucking things up).

People who follow gods, however, always seem to follow a god whose desires exactly match the worshiper. Right now, depending on who you talk to, God wants gays to be loved and tolerated, or God wants gays shuttered out of sight, or God wants them executed.

So if someone wants to spend time pointing out atheists' flaws and failures, AND wants to follow God's desires, by an amazing coincidence not often seen outside of poorly written dramas, God desires them to preach to the heathens. This Divine Desire is weighted much more heavily than God's apparent disconcern for my belief, or my desire for evidence of his existification.

 

[just_me]

Because they want to reveal to you God's forgiveness, grace, and love.
Because they don't want you to suffer eternal torment and emptiness at the hands of God.
What's inconsistent in that?

This is the feelings one gets from the promises one receives from the belief in an entity who is known from a book. This is a belief system that doesn't require anything more than faith. How can you reveal what is essentially spiritual fervor?

 

[just_me]

It stands to reason that someone who believes in God would reverence him enough to follow his desires

I think your premise is off.

I have worked for many leaders, and every single one has had at least one opinion I disagreed with, a stance I argued with or would have argued if it was appropriate (Enlisted Seamen do not tell full bird Captains that they're fucking things up).

People who follow gods, however, always seem to follow a god whose desires exactly match the worshiper. Right now, depending on who you talk to, God wants gays to be loved and tolerated, or God wants gays shuttered out of sight, or God wants them executed.

So if someone wants to spend time pointing out atheists' flaws and failures, AND wants to follow God's desires, by an amazing coincidence not often seen outside of poorly written dramas, God desires them to preach to the heathens. This Divine Desire is weighted much more heavily than God's apparent disconcern for my belief, or my desire for evidence of his existification.

You mean cherry picking what they desire their God to be.These are ideals and are consistent with many faith based organizations. What I am talking about is the manner in which their God wishes to be believed as an entity, not the message they approve of him having.

I think that there are two main reasons.

The first is that if you're a member of a religion like Christianity or something where your belief system tells you that anybody who disagrees with you will quite literally spend the rest of eternity burning in the fiery pits of Hell, there's kind of an obligation on you to convince non-believers that you're right since there's such a horrific downside waiting for them if they don't convert to your faith. If they can come up with convincing arguments for the existence of their God, they are saving people's souls and giving them an eternity of bliss instead of one of torture.

The second is that they think that non-believers are just plain wrong about something fundamental about the universe. From the point of view of a theist, talking to an atheist is the equivalent of a sane person talking to a Flat Earther. When you see someone being wrong about something so damn obvious, you want to correct them. While some can just adopt a live-and-let-live strategy, it's far more natural to be curious about how they're so incorrect about something that there's really no excuse for anybody to be incorrect about and try to educate them.

I mean, we fly planes around the fucking planet and there are currently live streaming cameras up in space filming the place, so how the hell could anybody possibly think the thing is flat? It's just weird. This is atheism from a theistic perspective. They may trust in God and be awed by his mystery and whatever other bullshit their own particular brand of crazy is preaching, but that doesn't stop their utter confusion about how fucking weird it is that these guys don't see the obvious truth that God is real. They want to let us know that we're being weird!

Did their God prove his existence to them the same way they are trying to prove him to us? If not then how do they think doing something different would work elsewhere. If they are driven by some need to save everyone else wouldn't that be desperation instead of faith?

 

[ronburgundy]

Theists would much rather that God would reveal himself. The notion that it serves some positive function for him not to is clearly just a way to rationalize the fact that there is evidence of him and tons of evidence against the existence on any kind of God that most theists want to believe in.

Nobody sincerely believes that faith is a virtue. It is an excuse. Theists do believe in an omniscient omnipotent God. Those are the primary emotional appeals of God, having someone who knows what's going on and can make sure all is as it should be in the end.
There is no appeal to God not revealing himself. It's just a fact that he hasn't, so theists are forced to try to pretend that he has and make pseudo-intellectual arguments for him (like argument from design), and when that fails they retreat to "Well, he doesn't want to reveal himself b/c then people wouldn't need faith, and for some reason faith is a virtue."

 

[Keith&Co.]

You mean cherry picking what they desire their God to be.

No, I'm talking about what they think their god desires for them to do. Which is what your OP was about.
And I'm saying that since their god doesn't have an existence independent of the believers, they are safe in assuming that what their god wants is what they want to do.
Same as when I take my dragon puppet to the mall and ask Drake what 'we' should have for lunch. Drake always wants to go to the same places I do.
You expect them to question their god's inaction and try to determine what god-as-an-independent-being means to imply. But that's not the mechanics of the Faithful. They KNOW what God wants, even if he never speaks to them, the same way they KNOW what's in the Bible, even if they never read it.

 

[just_me]

You mean cherry picking what they desire their God to be.

No, I'm talking about what they think their god desires for them to do. Which is what your OP was about.
And I'm saying that since their god doesn't have an existence independent of the believers, they are safe in assuming that what their god wants is what they want to do.
Same as when I take my dragon puppet to the mall and ask Drake what 'we' should have for lunch. Drake always wants to go to the same places I do.
You expect them to question their god's inaction and try to determine what god-as-an-independent-being means to imply. But that's not the mechanics of the Faithful. They KNOW what God wants, even if he never speaks to them, the same way they KNOW what's in the Bible, even if they never read it.

Ok, i was a little confused there. I was under the assumption that these people believe was all printed in the Bible. Talking about the Christian God.

What you are talking about is a special sort of crazy, but since cherry picking the Bible would produce their own ideal of what God is about, could it not be argued that what they think God wants is what they are championing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ok, i was a little confused there. I was under the assumption that these people believe was all printed in the Bible. Talking about the Christian God.

Well, they SAY it's all biblical, but that's after they filter the available scripture by the goals they already have. And sometimes add shit of pure invention. Stuff the Bible does NOT say, but they think it should.

What you are talking about is a special sort of crazy,

I think the technical term for that sort of crazy is 'religion.'

but since cherry picking the Bible would produce their own ideal of what God is about, could it not be argued that what they think God wants is what they are championing.

Well, you can argue anything.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

People who follow gods, however, always seem to follow a god whose desires exactly match the worshiper. Right now, depending on who you talk to, God wants gays to be loved and tolerated, or God wants gays shuttered out of sight, or God wants them executed.

Exactly, it is a "What the Bible means to me" type of worship, not a "What does the Bible mean" worship.

If they do, then doesn't that speak volumes about what they really think of God's abilities and if they think so less of those that they can step in, then how is this the God they speak of.

Here is the thing. There is still disagreement among believers as to whether "God" decides whether people believe in "God". As a result, I'm a Calvinistic Atheist.

 

[Politesse]

As a result, I'm a Calvinistic Atheist.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that there are two main reasons.

The first is that if you're a member of a religion like Christianity or something where your belief system tells you that anybody who disagrees with you will quite literally spend the rest of eternity burning in the fiery pits of Hell, there's kind of an obligation on you to convince non-believers that you're right since there's such a horrific downside waiting for them if they don't convert to your faith. If they can come up with convincing arguments for the existence of their God, they are saving people's souls and giving them an eternity of bliss instead of one of torture.

The second is that they think that non-believers are just plain wrong about something fundamental about the universe. From the point of view of a theist, talking to an atheist is the equivalent of a sane person talking to a Flat Earther. When you see someone being wrong about something so damn obvious, you want to correct them. While some can just adopt a live-and-let-live strategy, it's far more natural to be curious about how they're so incorrect about something that there's really no excuse for anybody to be incorrect about and try to educate them.

I mean, we fly planes around the fucking planet and there are currently live streaming cameras up in space filming the place, so how the hell could anybody possibly think the thing is flat? It's just weird. This is atheism from a theistic perspective. They may trust in God and be awed by his mystery and whatever other bullshit their own particular brand of crazy is preaching, but that doesn't stop their utter confusion about how fucking weird it is that these guys don't see the obvious truth that God is real. They want to let us know that we're being weird!

Did their God prove his existence to them the same way they are trying to prove him to us? If not then how do they think doing something different would work elsewhere. If they are driven by some need to save everyone else wouldn't that be desperation instead of faith?

No, it's driven by their being nice. If someone works to help improve diets or encourage seat belt use, that's not driven by desperation or anything. They see a problem where other people are going to unecessarily suffer if they continue on their current path and they want to do something to have them avoid that suffering. You may disagree with how nice it is and you don't want some nosy asshole telling you that you should be eating more salads when you're enjoying your Big Mac, but that doesn't change the fact that the guy's motivations are positive ones intended to help you.

It's the same with trying to save people's souls. You may not want some asshole bothering you by trying to sell you whatever his brand of crazy happens to be, but that doesn't change the fact that the guy's motivations are positive ones intended to help you.

 

[Lion IRC]

It stands to reason that someone who believes in God would reverence him enough to follow his desires and since he has chosen to not reveal himself, I assume that it is his wish not to have it so. Those who believe in him talk about his omniscient and omnipotent. They speak of his mind as being so unfathomable that we should unerringly follow him because he is God and there is a purpose for everything he does.

If that is so, why on Earth would so many of them try to prove to others that he does exist, if he has a reason to remain the way he has, unrevealed? Do these people think they are smarter than he. Wiser than he or that he simply has made a mistake, which they are going to correct, somehow by trying to prove he exists? If they do, then doesn't that speak volumes about what they really think of God's abilities and if they think so less of those that they can step in, then how is this the God they speak of.

Don't you think that...
Nevermind.
I would hate to derail your well-defined, super specific thread topic.

 

[bilby]

It stands to reason that someone who believes in God would reverence him enough to follow his desires and since he has chosen to not reveal himself, I assume that it is his wish not to have it so. Those who believe in him talk about his omniscient and omnipotent. They speak of his mind as being so unfathomable that we should unerringly follow him because he is God and there is a purpose for everything he does.

If that is so, why on Earth would so many of them try to prove to others that he does exist, if he has a reason to remain the way he has, unrevealed? Do these people think they are smarter than he. Wiser than he or that he simply has made a mistake, which they are going to correct, somehow by trying to prove he exists? If they do, then doesn't that speak volumes about what they really think of God's abilities and if they think so less of those that they can step in, then how is this the God they speak of.

Don't you think that...
Nevermind.
I would hate to derail your well-defined, super specific thread topic.

It's a neat trick that - Imply that you have some devastating rebuttal, but don't actually present it.

That way nobody can show that you are in fact completely unable to rebut the point being made, but you get to pretend that the problem is with the 'thread topic' and your deep respect for it, rather than with your abject lack of an argument that might convince anyone.

Perhaps someone smarter than you will actually come up with a non-shithouse rebuttal, and you can hope that they think you thought it up too. Or perhaps people will just assume that you are able to see a flaw, and will worry that they missed something. Certainly it's much easier to spread doubt by vile insinuation, than it is to actually cast real doubt.

I mean, nobody will notice that you could have simply chosen not to post at all, if you didn't have anything useful to say.

And of course, your long history of deep respect for keeping threads on topic will stand you in good stead in this endeav...

Oh, wait.

Shit.