xeren

I wrote:

thechort (he'll eventually chime in if I represent him too badly) said to me (and this is just an example he gave me, not an all-inclusive reason why everyone "rejects" god)that one of the reasons a person might not see the evidence as convincing is that maybe he has bad associations with father figures, and doesn't want to see God as his creator.

To which my reply is, is the person's bad association with father figures, and the resulting rejection of the evidence for god, that person's own fault? I would say no.

Of course, I'm sure there are other reasons why people might be biased against believing in God, but can anyone actually think of a reason that would make it that person's fault for rejecting god?, and therfore warrant just punishment from god?

-xeren

Biff the unclean

Sticking with the assumption of a god existing you still have a god who is not in contact with us. So there is nothing we could know about it's habits or attributes; except, for some reason of It's own, It doesn't want to chat. There is no way to tell if belief or non - belief were punishable offences, because It won't say.

The only place we hear that it is a punishable offence not to believe in this god is from people who make their livings (sometimes a damned good living) from the money "believers" give to them. These people have no way to contact this god, any more than we do. Therefore we have no reason to think that they know god's preferences any more than we do. So the sensible thing to do would be to disregard any claims of information they were willing to sell us, especially damnation from disbelief. As it is "belief" that their profits are based on.

Biff the unclean

...one of the reasons a person might not see the evidence as convincing is that maybe he has bad associations with father figures, and doesn't want to see God as his creator.

If a person had a perfectly good human Dad why would he need an 'invisible Daddy in the sky' substitute? Sky Dad sounds like a pittiful cry for help to me.

Your room mate is insulting you left and right and disguising the insults as religion. And you are falling for it.
Were you late on your part of the rent or did you drink milk out of the carton to set him off? 'Cause if you didn't he has a big problem with manners.

Clutch

xeren,

You're absolutely right. While it certainly is an insult to issue a blanket diagnosis of atheism in terms of bad associations with father figures, rather than taking seriously the pretty straightforward reasons for not believing, this sort of insult actually weakens the Christian case even further.

Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner, as Bertie Wooster says hopefully. The father figure business sounds like a mitigating factor. Unless having bad associations is itself morally blameworthy -- indeed, morally reprehensible -- it's hard to see why this armchair diagnosis of atheism does anything except make the alleged punishment of atheists more baffling. If true, it would suggest that atheists ignore evidence for reasons beyond or at the margins of their own conscious volition. They get condemned to hellfire for that? While the child murderer with the deathbed conversion gets his wings? This'd be that perfect Christian moral sensibility we're always hearing about.

In any case, it's a total dodge. What, exactly, about father figures or rebelliousness or the other 72 red herrings waiting in the wings, explains why the extant arguments for theism are textbook cases of fallacy? Deep down in my heart I'm rebellious; therefore the Ontological Argument is sound? Er... I think there's a few steps missing in that reasoning. But then, who knows why I think that?

Unum

My apologies to you and thechort if you think I have single-handedly ruined the thread. However, consider what I am saying and see if it does not have direct bearing on what you are talking about. In the original post that started this thread you attributed thechort as saying "What about the possibility that people, though they cannot force themselves to believe in God because they do not find the evidence convincing, do not see the evidence as convincing because they don't want to see the evidence as convincing (as a result of whatever bias they may have from their past)." This is exactly what I am talking about with my posts. Perhaps you can't see the evidence that I am presenting as God because you don't want to see this evidence as God. If you were to take the universe and logically follow what it means to the fundamental aspects of it, you will find that they differ very, very little from what definitions of God have always been.

The Universe - the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated. definition from www.m-w.com

The universe, by definition, is made up of the things that we observe and even the things we have only imagined. The universe is a singular entity. Being the whole body of things, it likewise contatins all things. It would contain all things that have power, making it all-powerful. It would contain all the knowledge making it all-knowing. It is everything observed, so it would be our supreme reality. We are a part of the the universe and we are conscious, so the universe contains consciousness. Again, we are part of the universe and we design and build things, therefore the universe posseses the ability to design and build things. If you think about it, God has been defined as having many of these same traits. Could it be that what we consider the universe, is what people of old called God?

I believe the evidence is right in front of you and always has been right in front of you. You might not see this as evidence of God because you do not want to see this as evidence of God. However, do not be surprised if you are punished (or not rewarded) for not realizing this. From the evidence available it seems perfectly fair to me.

Peace,

Unum

xeren

Cool. I'm almost satisfied, and ready to tell thechort to remember to check back at this thread. But the "rejecting father figure" is only one possibility where it's obviously not the person's fault that they don't see the evidence for god's existence compelling, if in fact he did exist and there was sufficient evidence of His existence. I'm look also for a general case, so to speak, where if, god exists and evidence for his existence was sufficient, a person would not be at fault for not believing. Here are my thoughts, and if my reasoning is faulty, please tell me.

The best case of someone not believing, and it also being their fault is the whole "too much pride" argument. Have you ever heard a Christian say that "you can't accept god's presence because you have to much pride"?

Let's say it is your fault that you are too prideful in God's eyes, and you don't see the blaring evidence for God's existence to be convincing as a result. Now, how could you have known that you were actually too prideful in God's eyes? If you don't believe in God, then you obviously would think that your pride was in no great excess. If god sent you to hell for not believing in Him, He would be sending you to hell under unjust circumstances- and he would be an evil God.

Did that argument make sense Clutch? I can't think of a more "it's your own fault for not believing" situation, and as I think I have shown, you couldn't possibly take God seriously if you don't believe in Him, so you couldn't possibly truly be at fault for not changing your viewpoint enough to realize that the evidence for god is sufficient. And so god sending you to hell would be unjust!

-xeren

xeren

No. God was separate from the universe to the people of old. An un-moved mover, you might say.

So the universe is going to punish me now? Crap I can run but I cann't hide. Wait, I can't hide either.

One of my favorite things is when people threaten me with punishment, and then say "Peace".

Ronin

Superfluous ~ exceeding what is sufficient or necessary;not needed;obsolete : marked by wastefulness.

Calling 'the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated' 'God' is superfluous, Unum.

Not to mention that the various theological tales of what the 'people of old' called 'God' gives anthropocentric qualities to their deity(s) in direct oppostion to that which you assert.

And this is exactly why the mindsnare of theism is cruel, heartless, utterly nonsensical and a detriment to truth, love and even basic human compassion.

Unum

What makes you so sure of this? I've described the universe and some of its fundamental truths and these fundamental truths also fit the description of God. Most of you posting on this thread have said "that can't be it", but none of you have said why it can't be it. That's what I'd like to know.

No, you can't hide. That's the whole point. Everyone is absolutely responsible for their actions. That's what makes it so fair.

You are sorely mistaken if you think I have threatened you with punishment. Go back and read what I said again. The punishment (or lack of reward) has nothing to do with me, it has everything to do with you. If you choose to deny the obvious and sow discord instead of unity, do not be surprised if you are not rewarded for these actions. I am not the one that doles out the punishments nor the rewards. What I am trying to do is help people avoid the punishment and receive the reward.

If someone points to a red-hot burner on a stove and says "this burner is red-hot and will most likely burn you causing you pain if you touch it" would you accuse them of threatening to burn you? You can still touch the burner and find out for yourself if it is hot (I know, I did this when I was younger and the burns on my fingers definitely let me know it was hot), however accusing the person trying to warn you will get you nowhere.

Peace,

Unum

xeren

Unum, your postings make baby jesus cry. Start a new thread, this has nothing to do with the Original Post.