Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 10-31-2002, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
What if ones revelation of God is dependent upon their attitude toward God?

What? And, while we're at it: so what?

Jamie_L · 10-31-2002, 08:42 AM

OK. Ignoring the SOMMS last post which is essentially a completely new OP for a different thread... Back to the orginal OP:

Well, it's a nice what-if, but it doesn't seem to be what is in evidence. Most people who are atheists (at least, most I've encountered) used to be theists. They used to have a positive attitude towards God. Based on the OP, they should have been privy to more evidence than the average atheist. And yet, they eventually concluded God did not really exist.

I personally came to my final conclusion about atheism when I was actively seeking God. I was genuinely attempting to come into the fold because I had met some genuinely good people who were Christians that made me re-think my agnostic driftings. Yet, it was during this quest for God that I came across some arguements against God's existence (mostly by chance) and found that they made much more sense to me. Thus, I feel the attitude did not precede the conclusion.

In order for the OP suggestion to hold in the face of all this, one must claim that EVERY SINGLE PERSON who starts as a theist and then becomes an atheist must FIRST get a bad attitude about God even though they are privy to the evidence, and then the evidence will somehow disappear for them, and they will fall from the fold.

Or, one has to use a No True Scottsman line or reasoning to say all those theists never really had a positive attitude, or that they did but for some other reason weren't privy to the evidence.

These options for explaining how the OP might be possible seem highly speculative and unfounded.

Jamie

Psycho Economist · 10-31-2002, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
But what I am saying is that this is part of a circular pattern.

Notice:
Closed attitude => no evidence for God
No evidence for God => no belief in God
No belief in God => Closed attitude

And again...you keep saying
No evidence for God => no belief in God

So we are essentially saying the same thing...just different parts of it.

Not necessarily. Yes, i'll grant that your line of reasoning is true of some people, but you can make links in a chain of causation that go anywhere...

Closed attitude => Refusal to listen to evidence against gods' existances.
Refusal to listen to evidence against gods' existances => Retained belief in God.
Retained belief in God => Egoistic incentives for continued belief.
Egoistic incentives for continued belief => Closed attitude.

We could do this all day.

I'd venture to guess that most ex-Christian atheists would love to have a transcendent all-powerful father figure looking out for them, and would love to have eternal life... but wishing don't make it so.

Quote:

Let me ask you a more meaningful question. Suppose, for arguments sake, that God did exist. Again, I'm not asking you to believe in God...this is (from your point of view) just a hypothetical situation.

[Suppose] God exists and he created everything. The cosmos, the universe, time and space, matter and energy. He tuned it for life and created mankind, created your family, created you.

Would you acknowledge God's sovereign power and authority over everything?

Well, I'm not of an authoritarian bent to begin with. My parents (sexually) created me, but that doesn't give them the right to micromanage my life now that I've reached a basic level of functional maturity.

But I'd say that my non-authoritarian nature led me go out and gather evidence as to whether "God's" annointed representatives were telling the truth, and not just say "I have to believe them; they're the duely deputized spokesmen of the all-soverign God".

Psycho Economist · 10-31-2002, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
This is exactly my point.

There is absolutely no physical evidence for either logic or math...they are both tautologies. We have no 'empirical' evidence for them. Yet we believe/use/rely upon them on a daily basis.

But...

1. You implied that there was "non-empirical" evidence for mathematics in the post I replied to. At least that's what I gathered out of the context...

2. We can test a theorem proof with empirical evidence, and reject it or accept it based on its ability to relate to the evidence. If a theorem proof doesn't fit the empirical evidence, one of the assumptions used to write the thing up was flawed in some respect... so we toss the theorem out, fix the assumptions, lather, rinse, repeat.

Jayhawker Soule · 10-31-2002, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamie_L:
These options for explaining how the OP might be possible seem highly speculative and unfounded.

It's also, in my opinion, highly irrelevant. All it serves to demonstrate is the possibility of a coherent God-belief. One can also construct a logically possible Faerie Kkingdom. That is no warrant for believing in either.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 10-31-2002, 08:52 AM

Psycho,

Quote:

Originally posted by Psycho Economist:

SOMMS:[Suppose] God exists and he created everything. The cosmos, the universe, time and space, matter and energy. He tuned it for life and created mankind, created your family, created you.

Would you acknowledge God's sovereign power and authority over everything?

Psycho: Well, I'm not of an authoritarian bent to begin with.

Bringing this back to the above question...does this mean you would not?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Rusting Car Bumper · 10-31-2002, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
What if ones revelation of God is dependent upon their attitude toward God?

This implies that the experience of God is in one's head. That doesnt mean its not a real experience. It simply means that God is then NOT an externally determinable being seperate from ones experience of God.

DC

Silent Acorns · 10-31-2002, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
But what I am saying is that this is part of a circular pattern.

Notice:
Closed attitude => no evidence for God
No evidence for God => no belief in God
No belief in God => Closed attitude

And again...you keep saying
No evidence for God => no belief in God

So we are essentially saying the same thing...just different parts of it.

No belief in god DOES NOT NECESSARILY LEAD TO a closed attitude to god <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> and that is the primary flaw in your "circular pattern" argument.

Quote:

Suppose, for arguments sake, that God did exist ... God exists and he created everything. The cosmos, the universe, time and space, matter and energy. He tuned it for life and created mankind, created your family, created you.

Would you acknowledge God's sovereign power and authority over everything?

Important question: do I know that this god exists and that it did everything you say it did?

If yes, then I can't help but acknowledge it, but that would be a pretty stupid question. It's like asking if you knew that 2+2=4, would you acknowledge it?

And if I don't know that this god exists because it deliberately hides from me ... how can I honestly acknowledge something I have no knowledge of?

Either way, your question is meaningless.

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: Silent Acorns ]

Oxymoron · 10-31-2002, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
 What empirical evidence do you have for logic?

Are you attempting a logical argument that undermines logic? Oxymoron indeed!

Quote:

How about math?

Ok, so 2+2 is... 5, say. What then is 2+3?

By all means abandon maths and logic because there is no "evidence" for it. But engage then in no debate and abandon all beliefs because they ain't worth jack without them.

Autonemesis · 10-31-2002, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
Bud,

Which, of course, makes perfect sense...
God wishes to know those who seek Him.

Excuse me? If God is supposed to be omniscient, he already knows me whether I seek him or not.

Let me put it this way: what have I got that God wants from me, and can't get from anywhere else?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-31-2002, 08:42 AM	#42
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	OK. Ignoring the SOMMS last post which is essentially a completely new OP for a different thread... Back to the orginal OP: Well, it's a nice what-if, but it doesn't seem to be what is in evidence. Most people who are atheists (at least, most I've encountered) used to be theists. They used to have a positive attitude towards God. Based on the OP, they should have been privy to more evidence than the average atheist. And yet, they eventually concluded God did not really exist. I personally came to my final conclusion about atheism when I was actively seeking God. I was genuinely attempting to come into the fold because I had met some genuinely good people who were Christians that made me re-think my agnostic driftings. Yet, it was during this quest for God that I came across some arguements against God's existence (mostly by chance) and found that they made much more sense to me. Thus, I feel the attitude did not precede the conclusion. In order for the OP suggestion to hold in the face of all this, one must claim that EVERY SINGLE PERSON who starts as a theist and then becomes an atheist must FIRST get a bad attitude about God even though they are privy to the evidence, and then the evidence will somehow disappear for them, and they will fall from the fold. Or, one has to use a No True Scottsman line or reasoning to say all those theists never really had a positive attitude, or that they did but for some other reason weren't privy to the evidence. These options for explaining how the OP might be possible seem highly speculative and unfounded. Jamie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.