Not really. My father was an atheist. The idea of a god of any kind simply didn't work for him. OTOH, Mom is a devout Christian and try as she might, she could never convince him of anything. Unless God made a statement like something no one could openly deny, I don't see this as the fault of theists. Merely that some don't believe, for whatever reasons of their own.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the lack of faith of Atheists due to theists' failure to support their claims?
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
That was my thought as well. You (general you) could no more convince me of Jesus being divine than I could convince you of the truths of The Buddha.
I think it depends on your definition of evidence. What may be evidence to me might not be to you. I can tell you my experiences but without you having experienced that first hand, how would you have evidence of same?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
I think perhaps many atheists are lapsed theists..who dropped out because their conceptual expectations based on a less than deep understanding of how to realize their divine birthright were not met. As Jesus explained....the correct path is very difficult...and very few are actually destined to succeed... If the seed when sown does not take root...it will not grow properly...
Can you provide verifiable proof of this evidence for someone else who would be willing to accept it? For example, if you are Christian, can you provide definitive proof of the divinity of Christ?
I would disagree with you. Why could it not be He-man? When the Bible was written, if the writers and compilers had used He-man, it would have been equally plausible. I believe in many cases, you are right about it being about the fear of death, or as you say, their salvation. So to stave off that fear, they embrace a story with no credible evidence, unless they themselves have had a religious experience that they cannot deny outright. In the absence of that evidence, on what do they base their belief? And why?
What truthfulness? What would be truthful about the supernatural, when the word implies something inherently "unnatural"? There is no empirical evidence of God. None. So what is it that the atheist is then disregarding exactly? I believe in God but in no way would I ever try to convince someone else of my position because I know that I cannot provide them with proof. It would not be truthful to browbeat someone into accepting what even I cannot prove.
Curious George
Veteran Member
I think that, or any other ego preserving rationalization, might be easier for people to swallow than dealing with the assertion that their core beliefs are fundamentally flawed.
I agree and disagree. My first mentor in college was a neuropsychologist. He absolutely refused to believe that behavior and nurture/nature was anything more than neuronal activity. Even with twin evidence, he was convinced that everything was genetic or biological. He was not open to other evidence at all. We debated this often and also often in heated debates. We did experiments involving twins and even then, he would deny evidence that was right in front of his nose. He, IMO, was an exception to your assertion that this group is open. Many are not open. And will turn a blind eye to credible evidence. And I do mean scientific credible evidence.
Curious George
Veteran Member
I think confirmation bias runs rampant through people of all walks, regardless of their beliefs. Those who assert they are not affected by such are often the most susceptible. One needs to constantly reevaluate.
I am also very well versed in the study of theology, formally, which I believe you know. That said, I'm curious why you consider yourself to be more, or rather, better equipped to decipher their implications. As a PhD level theology professor (retired), I wouldn't presume such a thing. The reason I say that is that many people can study whatever faith and understand it implicitly. It doesn't require faith to understand those implications and IMO, it often can cause one to see the 'cause and effects' from a biased POV. Is it not possible that when studying theology or in your case, the Bible, you are predisposed to see what it is you want in the absence of empirical data?
I totally agree George. I believe one should never stop searching. Nor should they turn a blind eye to evidence simply because it doesn't fit their cognitive paradigm. I loathe cognitive psychology. That professor tried to tell me it was like a little train conductor running around my brain collecting the memories or facts I needed. Horse pucky!! But despite that I don't like that branch, I also would never totally disregard it because it does have merit. Much like Freud, who I consider a hack and a fraud but his theories are still worthy of study, if only to see what cocaine can do to a brilliant mind!
Why must the pinnacle be God? Why could it not be someone with an IQ that is immeasurable? I do believe in God but to consider God at the 'top' of something is putting limits on God, IMO. Or rather, giving God a capacity that may or may not exist.
The same thing exists for people of faith, that is, them insulting people who are atheists, calling them ignorant. I would refer you to any of the threads about abortion or gay rights for examples of this. I admit to calling a few ignorant but only in the concept of idiocy of factual evidence, such as HIV or transgender issues from a biological POV. I don't call another ignorant when it comes to their faiths and in fact, very often defend them.
gnostic
The Lost One
A baby has no concept of death, true, but that doesn't mean the baby has concept of immortality. In fact, the baby has no concept of life as well.
A baby may have no concept of his or her mother's flaws, but that because the baby has no concept of right and wrong, good and bad.
The baby have no concepts of immortality, infallibility and god. To say that baby see mother as a god, is just projection of your preconception, which has nothing to do with the baby.
A baby may have no concept of his or her mother's flaws, but that because the baby has no concept of right and wrong, good and bad.
The baby have no concepts of immortality, infallibility and god. To say that baby see mother as a god, is just projection of your preconception, which has nothing to do with the baby.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
That is the wisdom behind non-duality...concepts are only representations of reality...they are not real...except of course as symbolic mental constructs...the real is forever on the other side.. For that reason Jesus taught..."unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." That is what meditation practice to still the mind is all about....realize reality directly non-conceptually.with the same innocence we once exhibited as children...but with one difference...now with self realization.....
Do you presume, then, that we each are not capable of being convinced of any position (i.e. that we all think differently enough)?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
No.
Strawman argument. You are presuming prudence, for no apparent reason. You are ''setting up'', the argument, with an erroneous premise. *You have defined atheism, btw, in the thread, as merely a lack of belief. In the OP, you are presenting the position of a thought out position. Ie, a position of 'there is no deity', /deities'.
*These aren't the 'same thing'. A position of ambivalence or not knowing, either way, is completely different than a declaration or belief that there aren't deities, or a Deity.
Last edited:
>>Do you think the flawed reasoning of the theist is to blame for atheists' refusing to "buy into" deities of any kind?<<
Yes I do. At least it is a great contributing factor in many cases, not all. I imagine some atheists spend most of their discourse with "pop theologians" (like us) and between that and grasping some important gists of Scripture, that is enough for them to say “not convincing enough for me, too many unknowns or disturbing ideas.”
And yet, I personally do not know of too many devout agnostics who converted to Christianity based upon reasoning it out alone? No doubt there are many celebrated cases of that, but for most of humanity what do you think is the reason most unbelievers become believers? Out of hope for something better after death? Out of fear? Out of tragedy? Or maybe God assisted in inspiring their minds once they humbled themselves enough to ask for answers, not just once, but sincerely in a continuous quest.
"Every happy family is happy in the same way and every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” --- Tolstoy That quote reminds me something of the subject at hand. Maybe most souls are at peace because of their certainty of God’s existence and His mercy, and most souls that are not at peace is for a thousand different reasons. Everyone is on a unique journey in some ways, it is not a one-size-fits-all to bring one into the light.
Last edited:
Then they see ALL as immortal and infallible. Father, mother, sister, brother, doctor, nurse, dog, cat.