Atheists Chose to be atheists?

[Trailblazer]

Because almost to a man, what they really believe is that if any form of god or gods existed, there would be evidence that they could recognize as such, and be convinced by, proving it.

If a theist God exists there would be evidence. If I was not a Baha'i, I would be an agnostic. I could never be a Christian because the Bible has too many inconsistencies. The Qur'an is a lot better, so I might be a Muslim if I had never discovered the Baha'i Faith. But as it is I accept the Bible and the Qur'an and the other scriptures of the past, because the Baha'i Faith has enabled me to understand them and put them into perspective.

So now back to the main thing I wanted to say. Since I am a theist, I believe that God exists and there is evidence that can be recognized as such, evidence one can be convinced by. I believe that one can prove that God exists, but only to themselves. That said, I do not think that everyone is going to be able to recognize what I or other theists recognize as evidence, because all people are very different . Also, motivation is very important. If an atheist is not motivated to believe in God he is not going to look at the evidence and search long and hard in an effort to determine if God exists.

If this is not blindingly irrational arrogance, I don't know what would be. And yet it is the overwhelming justification for atheism being professed by the majority of atheists that I've encountered.

As I just said to @ wandering peacefully, I do not think it is arrogance for an atheist to say he does not know if God exists. Imo, atheism does not need to be justified since there is no proof that God exists. If anything, theism needs to be justified, and I believe there is justification for it.

In my heart and mind, I am sure God exists, and I am sure that Baha'u'llah was the Messenger of God for this age, but I would never try to convince anyone else that what I believe is true. However, if anyone wants to know what I believe and why I am so certain it is true, I am more than happy to explain it to them.

And it appears also to be the case, for you. You refuse to accept the possibility of a theist perspective unless and until you are given convincing evidence. (Isn't this the case?) Completely ignoring the overwhelming possibility that you would not be capable of recognizing such evidence if it exists.

If @ wandering peacefully was not capable of recognizing the evidence, even if it exists, why would he believe that God exists? I would not believe that God exists if I had not recognized the evidence.

I do not believe a just and loving God would ever expect us to believe He exists with no evidence, and that is why God provides evidence. However, since God is All-Knowing, God knows that not everyone will recognize the evidence. According to my beliefs, only God knows if we were capable of recognizing the evidence, so only God can judge anyone. What happens after we die is another subject. For the most part that is unknown.

 

[PureX]

If a theist God exists there would be evidence. If I was not a Baha'i, I would be an agnostic. I could never be a Christian because the Bible has too many inconsistencies. The Qur'an is a lot better, so I might be a Muslim if I had never discovered the Baha'i Faith. But as it is I accept the Bible and the Qur'an and the other scriptures of the past, because the Baha'i Faith has enabled me to understand them and put them into perspective.

If I choose to define God as "wetness", I would have plenty of "objective evidence" of my God's existence any time it rains. Atheists choose to define God by the conceptual artifice of religious mythology, and then demand objective physical evidence for it's existence. Which guarantees that, logically, such evidence will not be found. And then they use this lack of evidence as their evidence for the lack of any gods. Even as they claim to be open to the possibility that gods exist. The antithetical inconsistency is enough to give a person whiplash. And all this from people who proclaim themselves to be super logical.

So now back to the main thing I wanted to say. Since I am a theist, I believe that God exists and there is evidence that can be recognized as such, evidence one can be convinced by. I believe that one can prove that God exists, but only to themselves. That said, I do not think that everyone is going to be able to recognize what I or other theists recognize as evidence, because all people are very different . Also, motivation is very important. If an atheist is not motivated to believe in God he is not going to look at the evidence and search long and hard in an effort to determine if God exists.

If I pray to God for a red bicycle for Christmas, and I get a red bicycle for Christmas, I will have "evidence" that God exists, AND answers our prayers. If I pray for a blue bicycle the next Christmas, and don't get it, I will have evidence that my God exists but doesn't always answer my prayers. How we conceptualize God, and what we take as evidence determines our conclusions. So the real question to be asked is not what kind of God is God, or does God even exist, because we cannot have the answers to these questions. The real questions to be asked is how will I choose to conceptualize God, and how will that conceptualization effect my experience of existence? (And, thereby, effect those around me.)

If @ wandering peacefully was not capable of recognizing the evidence, even if it exists, why would he believe that God exists? I would not believe that God exists if I had not recognized the evidence.

Once we understand that what we call "evidence" is a matter of choice, because what we are calling "God" is likewise a matter of choice, we then have that choice within our conceptual grasp. And we can make it consciously, or change it, consciously, based on the outcomes that we experience as a result. And this is what it means to actually be "open to the possibilities" offered to us by theism.

 

[Trailblazer]

Once we understand that what we call "evidence" is a matter of choice, because what we are calling "God" is likewise a matter of choice, we then have that choice within our conceptual grasp. And we can make it consciously, or change it, consciously, based on the outcomes that we experience as a result. And this is what it means to actually be "open to the possibilities" offered to us by theism.

With all due respect, I am not so sure that what we call evidence is a matter of choice or that what we call God is a matter of conscious choice that is based upon outcomes. However, I think that atheists should be "open to the possibilities" offered by theism because I believe in open-mindedness and independent investigation of truth. Thus the wise man looks at all the possibilities rather than closing the door on them:

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103