The Faith of Atheists and Agnostics

[abelcainsbrother]

Atheists are mad at God for not creating us like robots who already serve him and obey him,they don't understand free-will and the freedom God gave us to obey or not.God gives us a choice and we can obey him or not and if we choose to we are blessed but if we don't we are the devils kids being deceived on their way to hell,which is what the devil wants.We can believe and obey God regardless of Satan's influence in our world too,so there is really no excuse.Jesus and life? Or Satan and death? You choose,but choose wisely because we all will and must accept responsibility for our beliefs and actions.

[1over137]

I only wish to add

Everybody is special and has his own stumbling blocks.
Sure, they may be very similar or same sometimes.

My point is that everybody struggles with his own issues.

[abelcainsbrother]

I only wish to add

Everybody is special and has his own stumbling blocks.
Sure, they may be very similar or same sometimes.

My point is that everybody struggles with his own issues.

Amen! We all do struggle in certain areas and that is why we can rely on the grace of God.

[Kurieuo]

I wonder what edwardmurphy would make of the following argument I happened to stumble upon Ed?

1) Lack of belief on a subject entails one is unaware to that subject of belief.
2) The moment one becomes aware to a subject of belief, they conceive of something about that subject of belief.
3) If you conceive something about a subject, then that something counts as a belief about that subject.
4) Therefore, one has a belief on any subject that they become aware to. (from 1, 2, 3)

Let's extend this argument...

5) The person who claims "to lack a belief in the subject of a belief" shows an awareness of that subject of belief.
6) It is not possible for a person to lack a belief in a subject that they are aware to (from 4).
7) Therefore, it is a contradiction to say "I lack a belief on some subject" since such presupposes an awareness to that subject.

And finally...

Atheists who claim that they lack a belief of God are full of doodoo. (from 7)

Kuriuo
I know this argument was not directed to me, but I’m curious how this works.
If Ed said I might have ice cream in my freezer; (thus the subject of belief is "ice cream in my freezer") but I never said anything about it, since you can’t simply lack belief either way; would you assume
a. I do not have Ice cream in my freezer
b. I do have Ice cream in my freezer

Where would your belief lie?

Hi Kenny,

Ok, so I've gone to Ed's house.
Do I know Ed? Is he a stoner? If so, then he most definitely will have ice cream.
Unless, he's eaten it all -- but I'm sure he'd be well stocked.

You know, if a diplomat working in another country reported, "I have intelligence that our embassy is going to be stormed and people shot, and the government can't/isn't go to do much to prevent it." What proof is there? The Government of the diplomat's country and President might decide, "No, the diplomat is bonkers. We have good standing relations with the country, and there's been no tangible evidence." While there is no real tangibility the diplomat stresses that in his communication he can feel in his gut something is amiss, and overheard whispers. He seriously advises that it would be prudent to withdraw at least temporarily.

If I was the President sitting back at home away from it all, well my gut intuition may not be the best indicator of things. But, someone who is closer to any issues in another country, on the ground and mixing, well their gut intuition is probably going to be more accurate. So I would take the advice and withdraw not based on something tangible, but trust in my operator even if they didn't give me something tangible other then they feel.

What am I getting at here?
Well, when we're around someone or closer to the scene if you will (as in the diplomat), we come to know the situation better.
We are so much more complicated with all the information we absorb to put it always down to an I saw this, so that means this. It could be, they smiled a certain way at me and followed me down the street, you just know that something is amiss!

You know, I can tell by the look on my sons face when he's done something wrong. He can lie so smoothly. But, when I suspect something is up -- I don't know what it is and may not have any evidence -- but, I'll get the bottom of it! I know my son.
We can know someone so well, that it's like we can read their thoughts even before they do something. I'm sure we've all said to someone, "Don't even think about doing what you're thinking!" And then they innocently respond with a grin, "What? I wasn't going to do anything."

Question: What would you call this kind of "knowledge" Kenny? Is it even knowledge. What is it based upon?


Back to Ed's ice cream.
I might just know Ed. That he loves his ice cream and stocks up.
And so based upon my knowledge of Ed, and maybe gut intuition (he's glanced his freezer a few times already after scoffing down some pizza), well - he's most definitely got ice cream! I know Ed's mannerisms and body language. It's as clear to me as if he spoke.

On the other hand, let's say I have no knowledge.
I'm in someone's house I don't really know and your question comes to mind: "Do they have ice cream in the fridge?"

Well, the one thing I most definite won't say is that: "I lack a belief about the existence of ice cream/ice creams and freezers!" Because:
1) I believe something of ice cream itself, and
2) I evidently believe in freezers, that many people have them and know freezers are where people normally store ice cream because it keeps it ice cold.

And what I won't say, is exactly what Ed wants to claim when he says that his Atheism is the lack of belief in Theism or a theistic proposition.

The argument that you quote of main is not aimed at someone who says they're agnostic or doesn't know. Rather it is aimed squarely at those who try to say their lack a belief entails absolutely no belief about the contents of the proposition.

Now when I walk into a strangers house, I may not know whether they have ice cream right?
So what this is actually called is being agnostic as to the proposition.
I'm not going to try and say, no I'm Atheist and I have no burden of proof to show that ice cream doesn't exist in the freezer because I lack a belief in the proposition itself. That would be silly talk wouldn't it?

The positions re: beliefs really are simple at the end of the day, but people can get carried away.
Especially if they're trying to get the corner on a debate as lively as whether or not God exists.
There are three basic positions:

1) I believe ice cream exists. (Icecreamist)
2) I believe ice cream doesn't exist. (Aicecreamist)
3) I have no bloody idea. (Agnosticecreamist)

I believe I've answered your question.
Happy to answer any follow ups.

[Kenny]

Atheists are mad at God for....Bla...bla...bla.....

I believe it was Joseph Goebbels who said: “if you repeat a lie often enough; it becomes the truth”
Congratulations! You’ve successfully proved him wrong.

Ken

[Kenny]

I wonder what edwardmurphy would make of the following argument I happened to stumble upon Ed?

1) Lack of belief on a subject entails one is unaware to that subject of belief.
2) The moment one becomes aware to a subject of belief, they conceive of something about that subject of belief.
3) If you conceive something about a subject, then that something counts as a belief about that subject.
4) Therefore, one has a belief on any subject that they become aware to. (from 1, 2, 3)

Let's extend this argument...

5) The person who claims "to lack a belief in the subject of a belief" shows an awareness of that subject of belief.
6) It is not possible for a person to lack a belief in a subject that they are aware to (from 4).
7) Therefore, it is a contradiction to say "I lack a belief on some subject" since such presupposes an awareness to that subject.

And finally...

Atheists who claim that they lack a belief of God are full of doodoo. (from 7)

Kuriuo
I know this argument was not directed to me, but I’m curious how this works.
If Ed said I might have ice cream in my freezer; (thus the subject of belief is "ice cream in my freezer") but I never said anything about it, since you can’t simply lack belief either way; would you assume
a. I do not have Ice cream in my freezer
b. I do have Ice cream in my freezer

Where would your belief lie?

Hi Kenny,

Ok, so I've gone to Ed's house.
Do I know Ed? Is he a stoner? If so, then he most definitely will have ice cream.
Unless, he's eaten it all -- but I'm sure he'd be well stocked.

You know, if a diplomat working in another country reported, "I have intelligence that our embassy is going to be stormed and people shot, and the government can't/isn't go to do much to prevent it." What proof is there? The Government of the diplomat's country and President might decide, "No, the diplomat is bonkers. We have good standing relations with the country, and there's been no tangible evidence." While there is no real tangibility the diplomat stresses that in his communication he can feel in his gut something is amiss, and overheard whispers. He seriously advises that it would be prudent to withdraw at least temporarily.

If I was the President sitting back at home away from it all, well my gut intuition may not be the best indicator of things. But, someone who is closer to any issues in another country, on the ground and mixing, well their gut intuition is probably going to be more accurate. So I would take the advice and withdraw not based on something tangible, but trust in my operator even if they didn't give me something tangible other then they feel.

What am I getting at here?
Well, when we're around someone or closer to the scene if you will (as in the diplomat), we come to know the situation better.
We are so much more complicated with all the information we absorb to put it always down to an I saw this, so that means this. It could be, they smiled a certain way at me and followed me down the street, you just know that something is amiss!

You know, I can tell by the look on my sons face when he's done something wrong. He can lie so smoothly. But, when I suspect something is up -- I don't know what it is and may not have any evidence -- but, I'll get the bottom of it! I know my son.
We can know someone so well, that it's like we can read their thoughts even before they do something. I'm sure we've all said to someone, "Don't even think about doing what you're thinking!" And then they innocently respond with a grin, "What? I wasn't going to do anything."

Question: What would you call this kind of "knowledge" Kenny? Is it even knowledge. What is it based upon?


Back to Ed's ice cream.
I might just know Ed. That he loves his ice cream and stocks up.
And so based upon my knowledge of Ed, and maybe gut intuition (he's glanced his freezer a few times already after scoffing down some pizza), well - he's most definitely got ice cream! I know Ed's mannerisms and body language. It's as clear to me as if he spoke.

On the other hand, let's say I have no knowledge.
I'm in someone's house I don't really know and your question comes to mind: "Do they have ice cream in the fridge?"

Well, the one thing I most definite won't say is that: "I lack a belief about the existence of ice cream/ice creams and freezers!" Because:
1) I believe something of ice cream itself, and
2) I evidently believe in freezers, that many people have them and know freezers are where people normally store ice cream because it keeps it ice cold.

And what I won't say, is exactly what Ed wants to claim when he says that his Atheism is the lack of belief in Theism or a theistic proposition.

The argument that you quote of main is not aimed at someone who says they're agnostic or doesn't know. Rather it is aimed squarely at those who try to say their lack a belief entails absolutely no belief about the contents of the proposition.

Now when I walk into a strangers house, I may not know whether they have ice cream right?
So what this is actually called is being agnostic as to the proposition.
I'm not going to try and say, no I'm Atheist and I have no burden of proof to show that ice cream doesn't exist in the freezer because I lack a belief in the proposition itself. That would be silly talk wouldn't it?

The positions re: beliefs really are simple at the end of the day, but people can get carried away.
Especially if they're trying to get the corner on a debate as lively as whether or not God exists.
There are three basic positions:

1) I believe ice cream exists. (Icecreamist)
2) I believe ice cream doesn't exist. (Aicecreamist)
3) I have no bloody idea. (Agnosticecreamist)

I believe I've answered your question.
Happy to answer any follow ups.

I had completely forgot about that question I asked you; thanks for bringing it back up. I think you’ve gotten the original story off a bit; it wasn’t about the existence of Ice Cream and freezers but about ice cream in Kenny’s freezer. If I recall it went a little something like this.

Ed told you that Kenny might have Ice Cream in his freezer. You have no way of speaking to Kenny to confirm this, nor have you access to his house; the only thing you have access to is Ed’s claim that Kenny might have it.
Since you can’t lack belief either way, would you assume
a. Kenny does have Ice Cream in his freezer… or
b. Kenny does not have Ice Cream in his freezer

Where would your belief lie?

Ken

[Kurieuo]

The way you put "since I can't lack belief" seems amiss...

But, nonetheless, my belief would lean with Ed.
Besides being Atheist, he's given my no reason to consider him a liar.

[Kenny]

The way you put "since I can't lack belief" seems amiss...

But, nonetheless, my belief would lean with Ed.
Besides being Atheist, he's given my no reason to consider him a liar.

Yeah I see your point; to assume Ken has Ice cream in his freezer is easy.
Now that I look at it, that was a very flawed question I asked you; it doesn’t apply very well with questions about the existence of God. I think it goes back to the ole claim “extraordinary claims require an extraordinary amount of evidence”.

If the claim is that Kenny has Ice cream at his home, that is easy to accept; you would even be willing to take Ed’s word for it. But if Ed told you that Ken has a Dinosaur at his home; now his word is no longer sufficient; you are going to require much more evidence to support that claim because the Dinosaur claim is an extraordinary claim; Ice cream is not. To the Atheist, God is an extraordinary claim as well

Ken

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:

I said I am certain that YOUR concept of God is not behind what exists.

Ok Kenny,

This may be against my better judgement, but I'll ask anyways.(and since I'm asking, it means you can answer on this thread)

While these are only some of God's attributes, which of these attributes of God, leads you to believe our concept of God is not "behind what exists"?

Eternality
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Holiness
Omniscience
Immanence
Immutability
Self-Existence
Sovereignty
Transcendence

Of the options on that list, I would have to go with Omnipresence, and Omniscience.

K

Ok Kenny, I'll bite. Tell me why God's Omniscience and Omnipresence prohibits Him from creating the universe.

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:

I said I am certain that YOUR concept of God is not behind what exists.

Ok Kenny,

This may be against my better judgement, but I'll ask anyways.(and since I'm asking, it means you can answer on this thread)

While these are only some of God's attributes, which of these attributes of God, leads you to believe our concept of God is not "behind what exists"?

Eternality
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Holiness
Omniscience
Immanence
Immutability
Self-Existence
Sovereignty
Transcendence

Of the options on that list, I would have to go with Omnipresence, and Omniscience.

K

Ok Kenny, I'll bite. Tell me why God's Omniscience and Omnipresence prohibits Him from creating the universe.

I think we've been over this already. Go check out pg 14


Ken

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:

I said I am certain that YOUR concept of God is not behind what exists.

Ok Kenny,

This may be against my better judgement, but I'll ask anyways.(and since I'm asking, it means you can answer on this thread)

While these are only some of God's attributes, which of these attributes of God, leads you to believe our concept of God is not "behind what exists"?

Eternality
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Holiness
Omniscience
Immanence
Immutability
Self-Existence
Sovereignty
Transcendence

Of the options on that list, I would have to go with Omnipresence, and Omniscience.

K

Ok Kenny, I'll bite. Tell me why God's Omniscience and Omnipresence prohibits Him from creating the universe.

I think we've been over this already. Go check out pg 14


Ken

Aha! Thanks Kenny. I missed your response. I'll go back and read what you wrote.

[neo-x]

Atheists are mad at God for not creating us like robots who already serve him and obey him,they don't understand free-will and the freedom God gave us to obey or not.God gives us a choice and we can obey him or not and if we choose to we are blessed but if we don't we are the devils kids being deceived on their way to hell,which is what the devil wants.We can believe and obey God regardless of Satan's influence in our world too,so there is really no excuse.Jesus and life? Or Satan and death? You choose,but choose wisely because we all will and must accept responsibility for our beliefs and actions.

Some people hate God, but that would be anti-theist or never-theist, rather than just a simple atheist, personally I find atheists are often misrepresented. Your post above is stereotypical. I have been an atheist and I was mad at God, but not because HE created me one way or the other but rather his inability to answer my prayer or protect me despite his words being different which to me sounded hollow claims. I was mad at God, at my parents at the priests and the church. And my anger was natural and justified. God did nothing and I went on to be an atheist.

I have found that God, for his reasons no one knows, does things as he likes and most of the times prayer changes nothing. He does things in his fashion and we don't always understand it. We feel anger, loneliness, rejection and sometimes God doesn't reassure us all. Its all part of the walk. We just need to be humble and accept we just don't know much.

So to say that God is just abundantly clear and all atheists are just trying to push it under the rug and keep claiming there is no God out of some misplaced sense of guilt/anger is plain wrong. If God had been that much clearer, there would be only one faith on this little, pale blue dot.

I grant some people do get emotional and really hate God sometimes with undue or unfair reasons. But mind you some don't. Sometimes that anger is justified and experienced and God and/or his people remain silent and don't show the love they are supposed to show and hence is born an unbeliever.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:
Ok Kenny, I'll bite. Tell me why God's Omniscience and Omnipresence prohibits Him from creating the universe.

Kenny wrote:
Omnipresence: There are scriptures that describe God walking, traveling from one location to another. You can’t be everyplace (omnipresent) and a specific place at the same time

Kenny,

Do you know that makes no sense? A specific place is included in every place. If you're going to question God's omnipresence, you need a better example than that.

Kenny wrote:
Omniscience: There are scriptures of God exhibiting anger, grief, repentance, (Genesis 6:6) and lack of knowledge (Genesis 18:20-21)
If God were knew everything (omniscient) when dealing with Sodom and Gomorrah, he would not have had to “go down to see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that had reached him” he would have already known, he would not have had grief in his heart nor would he have repented making man before sending the flood.

This has already been discussed, and explained before.
Anthropopathism

Genesis 6:6
6 The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

God was sorry that He had made humankind because people generally did
not want a relationship with God. They insisted on living life independent
of God and consequently destroying themselves in sin. He was sorry over
what His special creation had become. This is an anthropopathism: Moses
described the Lord as having human emotions (cf. 9:15, 16).

http://soniclight.org/constable/notes/h ... enesis.htm

Genesis 18:20-21
20 And the Lord said, “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. 21 I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”

"The Lord would not arbitrarily destroy them [the people of Sodom and Gomorah]. As a fair and just judge, He would examine the evidence and then reward their deeds appropriately. The anthropomorphic language veils the ontological reality of God's omniscience, but the Lord seems to have been more concerned in this context with revealing Himself as a fair judge, emphasizing the importance of human responsibility and inviting Abraham to assume the role of an intercessor."[638]

http://soniclight.org/constable/notes/h ... enesis.htm

Kenny,

Understand anthropopathism, and anthropomorphism, and you'll see that there is no issue with God's omniscience. And therefore, your issue with the God of the bible not being the creator of the universe, is founded on your mis-interpretation of scripture.

Anthropomorphism
Anthropopathism

[abelcainsbrother]

Atheists are mad at God for....Bla...bla...bla.....

I believe it was Joseph Goebbels who said: “if you repeat a lie often enough; it becomes the truth”
Congratulations! You’ve successfully proved him wrong.

Ken

First off,I thought you were agnostic and secondly,you obviously have not heard atheist talking points and how they twist the bible and atheists do have a problem with free will based on their talking points.I have not heard you use them as at least you use original material but if you don't believe me I say you should pose as a Christian and go online to YouTube and most any web-sight where atheists are and you'll hear them yourself mock God about why he allowed sin when he could've stopped it,etc.I try to reach atheists all the time on-line and I know how they are.I know they don't speak for all atheists but they are online.

[RickD]

Atheists are mad at God for....Bla...bla...bla.....

I believe it was Joseph Goebbels who said: “if you repeat a lie often enough; it becomes the truth”
Congratulations! You’ve successfully proved him wrong.

Ken

First off,I thought you were agnostic and secondly,you obviously have not heard atheist talking points and how they twist the bible and atheists do have a problem with free will based on their talking points.I have not heard you use them as at least you use original material but if you don't believe me I say you should pose as a Christian and go online to YouTube and most any web-sight where atheists are and you'll hear them yourself mock God about why he allowed sin when he could've stopped it,etc.I try to reach atheists all the time on-line and I know how they are.I know they don't speak for all atheists but they are online.

I think it's also fair to say that some atheists just don't understand scripture properly. Just like Kenny did above, with the verses he thought went against God's omniscience. Now that he has been given an interpretation that shows God's omniscience is compatible with scripture, then he can put that misunderstanding behind him.