Wyz_sub10

Speaking from experience - I thought hell was a lousy deal when I was a Christian. But I didn't say "geez, I think it's lousy so I won't believe." That makes no sense (it's like saying I don't like the cold, so I choose not to believe the North Pole exists).

Rather, you might find it impossible to believe that a loving god would send people to hell. Therefore, you would reject one of the two notions - 1) he is loving, 2) he sends people to hell. In neither case are you rejecting the notion of god's existence.

You may say that a loving god that sends people to hell cannot exist. But in that case your rationale for rejecting god is the fact that the definition is illogical, not because you don't like the idea of hell.

If you tell me god is a tall man that is also short, I may deny such a being can exist, but not because you say he's tall, but because I cannot buy that he is tall and short at the same time.

The theistic position is revealed by accepting that a god exists to do the very thing you supposedly reject him for doing.

If you don't like hell, so you reject god, are you really denying his existence, or stating that you abhor him for this practice?

Whatever I may think about the concept of hell, I don't deny god because he supposedly sends people there. He doesn't. Because there is no hell. And there is no god.

I deny an omni god exists for a wide variety of reasons, but not because he "does" anything. If I think he does something, I must concede that he exists to do so.

As you say, in their opinion.

Although a Catholic, I rejected some of their teachings. By their definitions, I rejected god as they defined him. Did that make me an atheist?

Do my opinions of god dictate whether you are an atheist or theist?

Yes, I understand this. But I don't see the relevance to whether an individual harbors a belief in god.

It has nothing to do with "sufficiency". I would begin by saying that both reasons do not end with "I don't believe in god" beyond simply stating so.

Refer to my comments above - if you claim to reject god's existence because you are mad at him, then you are not really rejecting god, are you? (It would be quite peculiar to be mad at someone you don't think exists)

A theist rejects god. An atheist rejects the existence of god. (i.e. there ain't no god for me to reject - just the notion of his existence)

You don't like the idea of a god that doesn't give evidence...so? I don't like the idea of a government that taxes me at over 30%. But waddaya gonna do?

If you do not believe in god because you do not see the evidence, that is a much different position. Just because I don't like an idea, doesn't give me cause to disbelieve it.

This doesn't solve your problem. You're still taking a position based on behaviour that you believe exists.

Try this:

"If god exists, he would send me cookies. He doesn't send me cookies. Therefore god doesn't exist."

This position is different - you are comparing the definition of god (cookie sender) to the reality (you don't get cookies) and concluding that the evidence does not support the existence of god.

Now, whether you're an atheist or not depends on whether you think the only possible god is a cookie-sender (or that all -sender gods are ridiculous concepts). You could be a apple-sender theist - you have no cookies, so the notion of the cookie-sender is absurd. But you have plenty of apples in your back yard, and you're convinced that the apple-sending lord put them there.

An atheist is not one who rejects a god, but one who does not accept the notion of god, absolutely.

Hopefully I've demonstrated what I see as a key difference.

But to put a fine point on it - someone who doesn't believe in god does not take that position based on what god does. That approach is contradictory.

I don't deny god's exsitence because he doesn't leave evidence. I deny it because there is no evidence to support his existence. (If I accepted that he didn't leave evidence, I would be acknowledging that he exists to do so.)

I do not feel discomforted by a god that doesn't leave evidence, so I, in turn, reject him.

Just as I said about being mad at god (which is what many theists accuse atheists of being) - if you're mad at god, you acknowledge his existence.

Shadowy Man

It is very foolish of you to believe that orbiting teapots has nothing to do with the afterlife.

Goober

So you accept that any of these assertions may be true? Wow.

Normal

I don't mean to be picky, but I don't like this example. "Hell" is different then "cold" in a pretty major way. (hint: faith is required for one of them)

I've found a lot of people born into christianity take on faith the nature of god. If someone were to reject the idea of hell, who is really to say what a "maximal loving god" would do, they reject the faith based on the idea.

I don't know, but I think a few atheists would be offended if you said they're reasons were "basically theistic" for rejecting the idea of god.

So logical inconsistancy is the only reason you could possibly reject an idea that must be based on faith?

They are saying IF god exists he does some thing, then concluding god does not exist by rejecting the idea of the some thing. By your logic, the Problem of Evil automatically fails because it first must posit a god to begin with.

What's wrong with saying you don't like hell, so you have no reason to believe god exists?

"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.”

Albert Einstein

But the reasoning I stated before never said god exists. it said if god exists, he sends people to hell.

I don't know, but this seems contradictory to me. If you deny an omni-god, your only rejecting one aspect of god's possible nature.
To deny a part of god's nature, isn't that the same as denying god's actions?

Of course, you can reject some ideas and build your own concept of god although this seems odd to me, as you were presumably taught god's nature from the bible, but the source for this new Wyz_sub10 god may be less controversial

In my previous examples, they rejected ideas about god and with them rejected the whole faith. Not all people create a new foundation for faith once the old one fails.

No, a person's own beliefes dictate that, and they are usually dependant on what they were taught.

If an individual is taught the calvinist god, s/he may reject that god based on the idea of being in control of one's own actions. If the calvinist god is the god they had faith it, how could you call them anything but an atheist?

They aren't "mad", per se, they just reject the ideas, and therefore the concept of god, based on what they were taught.

The only requirement for atheistism that I know, is lack of belief in god. If you are taught god sends people to hell, and feel this idea is wrong, and causes you to lack belief in an entity that does this, you are an atheist.

Again, faith is required for god, but not for the government. If the idea of a god that doesn't give evidence causes you to lose faith, you are an atheist.

Again, I'd say all that atheism requires is you to believe an idea associated with god is "wrong".

Both realities result in the not-getting of cookies from a cookie sender.

I think you're forgetting most people are born into a religion and are only taught the nature of one god. By rejecting that one god they are taught (say, from scripture) they have no basis to posit a new god, so they are atheists. Rejecting one god is equivilant to rejecting the absolute idea of god in this case.

Again, I'd have to ask about people who reject god based on the problem of evil/argument of evil?

I don't think it has anything to do with emotion, it has to do with rejecting ideas that were taught to you about god's nature, and simply not believing in them because you think they are wrong.

Wyz_sub10

Faith isn't at the heart of the point. You are arguing that an atheist may reject god because he doesn't like the idea of sending people to hell.

Not liking something is not a basis for not believing in something. They are two different things. Just because you don't like the idea of god sending people to hell, does not mean you think god does not exist. It's circular to use that as a reason to disbelieve.

They may reject the faith based on the inconsistency between hell and some other notion they have of god. But it sounds like you are suggesting they simply "decide" to stop believing because they don't like the rules. Again, if you acknowledge that the rules exist, you must be a theist.

A valid statement would be to say that someone stopped believing in god, not because they didn't like the idea of hell, but because they could not believe that such a god could possibly exist. (Still, as I have pointed out, they may still believe in a god - just one that doesn't send people to hell).

I think my whole point is that those people aren't atheists if they believe in god, which is what you'd have to believe if you were mad at god.

But those atheists can speak up anytime they like.

I suppose one could have a host of reasons for not believing in god, but believing he plays by certain rules is not one of them. You have to first accept he exists to get to this point. I'm not sure why you are finding this so unpalatable.

"I don't believe in god because he sends people to hell" You see nothing inconsistent about this position?

No, because you are rejecting the idea (i.e. hell), not god's existence. How can you? The idea you are rejecting is one that you believe god exists to do.

No, the POE simply demontrates the logical inconsitency of the Christian concept of god. There is nothing wrong with positing a god. It is accepting that a function derives from god, and then using that function to "disbelieve" in him that causes the logical dilemma.

Saying: "If god exists war would not exist. There is war. Therefore god doesn't exist" is perfectly logical. I am not accepting god's existence at all. I am merely comparing the definition of god to observable reality and seeing if the "theory" fits the "result".

But saying: "God sends people to hell. I do not like a god that would do that. Therefore god does not exist" is not a valid argument. In addition to the obvious non sequitur is the fact that I am beginning with the position that god exists in the first place.

I don't know of any person who does not believe in god by believing in god.

See above.

Yes, Einstein is saying that if god did indeed exist he would be more of a monster than a loving father.

Therefore, it is logical inconsistent to view him as a loving father while he repeatedly punishes people for his own faults (being omnipotent and all).

Einstein appears to be saying that the concept of god does not make sense in light of the reality of the world. But I'm not here to try and interpret what Einstein meant in any case.

Fine, but are you saying someone rejects god because such a being couldn't possibly send someone to hell, or are you saying that simply not agreeing with the practice is cause for disbelief.

I disagree with many practices, but that is not reason to disbelieve them.

It is not god's nature I deny - it is the defintion applied to god that is inconsistent with reality that cause me to doubt.

I was taught god's nature through a mix of the bible and the Catholic school system. But again, it's not god's nature I deny. It's his existence due to the contrast between the definition of god and the observable reality.

In other words (example only), teachers taught god answers prayers. I prayed and nothing changed. So I realized that, if god answers prayers, but prayers go unanswered, then 1) god does not answer prayers (or all prayers), 2) god does not exist.

If I hold to belief 1. I remain a theist (with a different definition than my teachers). If I believe 2. then I am an atheist.

Notice I did not say "I do not like that god does not answer prayers." That would be akin to saying, "I wish god answered prayers."

I agree with that - that people do not necessarily create a new foundation. But rejecting the faith or the teachings is not the same as rejecting god. (you can simply reject the teaching)

But let's say, for argument's sake, that you reject god because of the teaching - why is this? Because the teaching betrays what you know or because you are uncomfortable with the teaching?

If that person who rejected god because they didn't like hell was told that god didn't really send people to hell, that was a misunderstanding, would they believe again? If so, what was being rejecting in the first place - god or the concept of hell?

But if I'm taught god likes red and I'm sure he likes blue, does it mean I am an atheist?

(Of course that's a rhetorical question - of course it doesn't mean that. It means I have ascribed my own attributes to god based on my understanding/desires/whatever. People do it all the time.)

It depends - if she is saying: "if god exists, we have no free will. We have free will. Therefore god does not exist", then this is a valid argument.

This differs from the hell example because she is comparing the definition of god to observable reality. I pointed out in the hell example that it could be a valid position provided it was based on more than a dislike for the rules, but an inability to reconcile the definitions of god and hell.

If they reject the definition, yes.

Agreed.

Yes, I agree. But this sounds different to me that what was said before (or at least what I thought you were sayng).

If you cannot reconcile the definition of god (loving and forgiving) with another definition (tortures people eternally) then you are recognizing a logical inconsistency.

But if you reject god because you don't like what he does - accepting that he does it - then this is a theistic position.

As above. If you understand the concept of god to be something that should leave evidence, and no evidence exists, then losing faith and becoming an atheist makes sense.

"Wrong" in direct relation to your understanding, your definition of god. (it's the comparison of the two that causes the doubt - not a rejection of the end product - hell - alone.

But both do not result in atheism.

I think you're forgetting that most people edit god's definition, no matter how slight, to coincide with their feelings on certain matters. This is all that is required to fulfill the scenario I describe.

You don't have to go from Yhwh to Allah, just from "eating meat is wrong" to "eating meat is probably okay when you have nothing else to eat."

They need not reject god to reject an idea. I don't know if you were ever a theist, but I spent 25 years as a good churchgoer (and my family, and most of my wife's family, is theist), and I can confidently say that if you ask 20 people a complex moral question from a "what does god want you to do?" stance, you will get 21 different answers. People will edit, embellish and improvise beyind what they are taught. Maybe Ned Flanders doesn't, but most real people do.

Covered above, I believe.

That's fine. I'm not going to argue that you can't be an atheist because the idea of god seems wrong to you.

I'm only arguing that the focal point is the existence of god, vis-à-vis the definitions vs. observations (or contrastng beliefs).

You don't disbelieve in Santa Claus because you don't like the presents he brings. You disbelieve because you reason that he isn't bringing you presents at all (albeit it may be because the presents you get suck, and if Santa did exist, he'd bring you cooler stuff).