onceuponapriori

Re Adults who've never heard of Christ:

I believe that God reveals himself to us in at least two ways. The first, and the one with which (Western) people are most familiar, is "Special Revelation". This is the delivery of the Gospel of Christ to certain individuals. But there is a second means by which God reveals himself to humanity. This is sometimes called "General Revelation". This concept supposes that God has made his existence obvious to humanity through his Creation: the power of the human mind, the moral law written on our hearts, the origin of the Universe, etc. These men, if they choose to accept the truth that has been revealed to them, are saved.

Now, many atheists will deny the validity of General Revelation. For, they say, if General Revelation exists, why do I not believe that God exists. There are, from my perspective, many possible reasons why this might be true.

Primarily, though, I believe that every (properly functioning) human will, *at some particular moment in their existence* grasp that God does indeed exist. So, some of the atheists who pose this question have not encountered the truth of our Lord's existence; others have suppressed their knowledge of God in their unrighteousness. You might be wondering what I mean by that.

I believe that certain atheists encounter the truth clearly, yet reject it so as to continue in their iniquity. Not every atheist, mind you, but some -- I once did this myself. They may know that murder is wrong, that stealing is wrong, etc, so they deny the existence of God so they might trick themselves into feeling justified in continuing the behavior they so enjoy. Please don't take this to mean that I think that only atheists sin. I know that I do.

Finally, I believe that God grants *every person* grace and evidence necessary to save them *at some point during their existence*. Maybe, God even grants some (or all of us) the ability to receive his grace after our earthly demise. I'm really not sure, to be honest.

I hope that helped, if only a little.

Wyz_sub10

Actually, I'm taking it to mean that you once stole and murdered. I hope that wasn't the case.

Speaking for only myself, not only do I know that murder and stealing are wrong, I don't need god to tell me that, and I can (and do) abstain from murder and stealing despite not feeling "watched" or "judged" by an omnipresent being.

This is a fallacious (although common) argument that people deny god because they want to sin without consequence.

No Christian denomination I know rejects the concept of forgiveness, so it's clear that a Christian could just as well rationalize sin without eternal consequence.

Also, an atheist does not believe in god's existence, so one certainly wouldn't put god into the equation re: "sins". What you are describing is really a theist who, perhaps, claims to be an atheist.

onceuponapriori

I've never murdered.

Perhaps, but I am not arguing for the existence of god(s). So, while interesting, I'm not sure that it is relevant. I was explaining how a theist might answer the original author's question.

I'm not familiar with any Christians who believe that we only should act morally, if God will not forgive us. Also, it might help to remember that not every Christian belongs to a particular denomination. I am explaining one reason *I* think General Revelation is possible, regardless of some atheist's denial of it.

Well, my friend, it goes without saying (?) that most theists believe in some sort of objective moral code. If God (usually conceived) were to exist, then certain activities would be objectively wrong. I'm not aware of any theistic moral relativists. But should there be some, my point still remains: I need only clarify that *my* conception of God is such that if one were to apprehend his existence, then one would know that particular activities are objectively immoral. In an effort to avoid this connection, some atheists create a psychological barrier to their belief in the truth.

Further still, I believe that atheists can and sometimes do act morally and apprehend moral truths. I never said that atheism necessarily precludes the commission of moral activities.

Wyz_sub10

Phew! (Although I figured as much. )

I'm only addressing your point that denying god would grant greater leeway to act as one chooses. I'm pointing out that the rationale for acting (for an atheist) does not come from the belief that a third-party is keeping score.

I agree. But that's the point - a theist believes the consequence of sin is ultimately contingent upon god's forgiveness. An atheist believes that the consequence of sin is ultimate, in itself. (In other words, I cannot "wash it away"). Which scenario makes sinning "easier"?

And *I* am simply expressing that I disagree with the concept (that's what we do around here, after all). I do not think the power of the mind speaks of god, and I certainly do not think there is a moral code "written in our hearts".

I wanted to illustrate that a moral code can exist without reference to god. You would argue that this *is* god, but I am denying it. Well, no way to prove that one either way.

As do most atheists.

No? Perhaps if you compared Christianity to Islam, or even some specifics between Christian churches re: things like homosexuality or corporal punishment.

That's fine onceup., but if your going to apply *your* conception to "one" (i.e. anyone or everyone) you should expect some push back. I am countering that one could decide on what is moral without apprehending his existence.

No they don't, or they are not atheists. They are theists. Atheists don't believe in god, so they have no need of barriers to keep him out.

You sweet talker, you. You're making me blush.

I never said you did. If you had said that, you would have received a much different response.

My response is focused solely on your assertion that atheists close their ears to a god they know exists in order to grant themselves greater moral freedoms.

1. if they know god exists, they are not atheists

2. this is not an effective way to grant greater moral freedom

Mageth

Welcome, onceuponapriori:

This is sometimes called "General Revelation". This concept supposes that God has made his existence obvious to humanity through his Creation:

Then why, the more I look, the more I'm convinced that god(s) don't exist?

the power of the human mind,

...has shown me that evolution can generate wonderful complexity!

the moral law written on our hearts,

And what is that "moral law"? I'm not familiar with it, because the morals I have were obtained from my parents and society.

I've a 6-year old son; he had no morals when he was born, trust me, and I've had to keep at teaching them to him so he won't run around acting like a banshee. If he didn't have parents to teach him those morals, do you honestly think the morals "written on his heart" would be sufficient?

the origin of the Universe, etc.

God's a singularity?

These men, if they choose to accept the truth that has been revealed to them, are saved.

Well, if God created all that, and created me, he created me so that I can't recognize (or choose) that "revealed truth." There's no "choosing" to be done. I can't accept a "truth" that I don't see.

Now, many atheists will deny the validity of General Revelation. For, they say, if General Revelation exists, why do I not believe that God exists.

A perfectly valid objection.

There are, from my perspective, many possible reasons why this might be true.

The obvious one is that "general revelation" is not true, of course, but you failed to mention that.

Primarily, though, I believe that every (properly functioning) human will, *at some particular moment in their existence* grasp that God does indeed exist.

So do you believe that someone like me is, therefore, not "properly functioning"? That the world consists of "properly functioning" believers and "improperly functioning" non-believers?

So, some of the atheists who pose this question have not encountered the truth of our Lord's existence;

Wait; I thought it was all around us, inside us, everywhere. How could anyone not have encountered it if it was true?

others have suppressed their knowledge of God in their unrighteousness. You might be wondering what I mean by that.

Yes I do. "Righteousness" and "unrighteousness" are terms from your religion and have no meaning to me. In fact, I think they're dangerous and divisive terms that teach one to exalt one's self above your neighbor. I'm neither righteous nor unrighteous; I'm just human. And I have no knowledge of an extant god, only definitions of a variety of gods, to work with.

I believe that certain atheists encounter the truth clearly, yet reject it so as to continue in their iniquity.

One huge strawman. As has been pointed out, such a person would not be an atheist. An atheist lacks belief in god(s), and therefore has not "encountered the truth clearly."

Not every atheist, mind you, but some -- I once did this myself.

If you claimed to be an atheist while at the same time inwardly believing that god exists, then you were not an atheist.

They may know that murder is wrong, that stealing is wrong, etc, so they deny the existence of God so they might trick themselves into feeling justified in continuing the behavior they so enjoy.

I'm an atheist, and I live as or more moral a life as most believers I know. Perhaps you're confusing "atheist" with "hedonist" or some such.

Please don't take this to mean that I think that only atheists sin. I know that I do.

Well, I don't "sin." Sin is another one of those concepts of your religion that is damaging and divisive to humankind. I lack belief in your god, dpn't follow your religion, and don't believe in its concepts such as "righteousness" and "sin".

Finally, I believe that God grants *every person* grace and evidence necessary to save them *at some point during their existence*. Maybe, God even grants some (or all of us) the ability to receive his grace after our earthly demise. I'm really not sure, to be honest.

There's something I don't understand. If "special revelation" is available to certain individuals, why doesn't god grant this boon to everyone? If his interest is really to give grace to all and to save all, this would seem to be the logical choice.

Mageth

onceuponapriori:

Well, my friend, it goes without saying (?) that most theists believe in some sort of objective moral code. If God (usually conceived) were to exist, then certain activities would be objectively wrong.

Hold on, there; the mere existence of a god doesn't necessarily require that certain activities be objectively wrong. For the activities to be objectively wrong, that god would have to pass down an unambiguous set of rules defining what is or is not objectively wrong. We don't have that, not even in the Bible, as can be attested by the wide variety of subjective moral standards that have been derived from the bible.

I'm not aware of any theistic moral relativists.

But you just said "most theists believe in some sort of objective moral code". That implies that there are a variety of "objective moral codes" believed in by theists. Therefore, theists as a whole subjectively determine what are their "objective" moral codes. Theism is as subjective in its selection of morals as non-theism is.

But should there be some, my point still remains: I need only clarify that *my* conception of God is such that if one were to apprehend his existence, then one would know that particular activities are objectively immoral.

Again, knowing that particular activities are objectively immoral does not follow directly from accepting the existence of a God.

In an effort to avoid this connection, some atheists create a psychological barrier to their belief in the truth.

Poppycock. You're getting morality all mixed up with belief; the two aren't as tightly coupled as you think. A morally-inclined person will behave morally as he or she sees fit in spite of their beliefs. In my opinion, the atheist who behaves morally in spite of the lack of an objective set of morals dictated by a God is more to be respected than a theist who behaves morally according to the objective set of morals (if there is such a thing) in order to please the God who dictated the morals.

Further still, I believe that atheists can and sometimes do act morally and apprehend moral truths.

I think that's true most of the time, actually. Atheists are just as likely to behave morally as theists, and that without the threat of displeasing God if they behave wrongly. Though I question what you mean by "moral truths"; you seem again to be implying some objective set of morals handed down by God.

onceuponapriori

Perhaps some theists would agree with you. God's willness to forgive our trespasses does not make it more likely that *I* will sin. I do know that some people who were once theists, but then psychologically destroyed their belief in God, do have an "easier" time acting imorally since they believe that without God, morality is subjective (at best).

I'm not speaking about popular theism. I'm only speaking of my own beliefs. But even the folks you cited do believe that their understanding of the moral code is objective.

I know this. I'm not saying that if one does not believe in God, then one cannot know morals and act accordingly. I'm claiming that if one does know God, then that is sufficient for them to realize the objectivity of certain moral truths. Some seek to escape this.

The manner in which I tried to communicate this was particularly stupid. I should have said "some theists condition themselves psychologically to become atheists, so that they might continue in their iniquity". Thanks for pointing that out.

onceuponapriori

Hello Mageth.

(Mageth)Well, if God created all that, and created me, he created me so that I can't recognize (or choose) that "revealed truth." There's no "choosing" to be done. I can't accept a "truth" that I don't see.

Bear in mind, I specifically said "at some point during their existence". I even allowed for the possibility that this could occur after their earthly demise.

(Mageth)do you believe that someone like me is, therefore, not "properly functioning"? That the world consists of "properly functioning" believers and "improperly functioning" non-believers?

No. Bear in mind, I specifically said "at some point during their existence". I even allowed for the possibility that this could occur after their earthly demise.

(oncesome of the atheists who pose this question have not encountered the truth of our Lord's existence;

(Mageth)Wait; I thought it was all around us, inside us, everywhere. How could anyone not have encountered it if it was true?

The evidence may not be obvious to a particular person at a particular time. I believe that *at some point* it will (or has) been made obvious to every (person who is currently an) atheist.

(Mageth)As has been pointed out, such a person would not be an atheist. An atheist lacks belief in god(s), and therefore has not "encountered the truth clearly."

The manner in which I tried to communicate this was particularly stupid. I should have said "some theists condition themselves psychologically to become atheists, so that they might continue in their iniquity". I was explainging why *some people who are currently* atheists do not believe in the validity of General Revelation. I certainly was not clear. Sorry.

(Mageth)Sin is another one of those concepts of your religion that is damaging and divisive to humankind. I lack belief in your god, dpn't follow your religion, and don't believe in its concepts such as "righteousness" and "sin".

For the purposes of this discussion, take "sin" to mean "to act imorally". Or, if that does not suffice, I'll try to remember to avoid using the term.


(Mageth)If "special revelation" is available to certain individuals, why doesn't god grant this boon to everyone? If his interest is really to give grace to all and to save all, this would seem to be the logical choice.

Special Revelation is not required by some to believe. God gives each person that which is necessary (note: not sufficient) for them to believe and accept his grace (*at some point during their existence*).

onceuponapriori

(mageth)the mere existence of a god doesn't necessarily require that certain activities be objectively wrong. For the activities to be objectively wrong, that god would have to pass down an unambiguous set of rules defining what is or is not objectively wrong. We don't have that, not even in the Bible, as can be attested by the wide variety of subjective moral standards that have been derived from the bible.


I made no claim as to how one would derive these moral truths once the existence of God is apprehended. I don't really need to either. Inherent in my definition of God is: if one were to apprehend the existence of God, one would also apprehend the objectivity of certain moral truths.

(mageth)But you just said "most theists believe in some sort of objective moral code". That implies that there are a variety of "objective moral codes" believed in by theists. Therefore, theists as a whole subjectively determine what are their "objective" moral codes. Theism is as subjective in its selection of morals as non-theism is.

I'm not bothered by this at all. I believe that people who do actually apprehend the existence of God (ie, the God I am referring to) will agree to the objectivity of certain moral truths. The fact that some nominal Christians disagree, while interesting, really is irelevant to my position.

(mageth)Again, knowing that particular activities are objectively immoral does not follow directly from accepting the existence of a God.

Of my God, it does. So I'm not sure where you're going with this.

(mageth)In my opinion, the atheist who behaves morally in spite of the lack of an objective set of morals dictated by a God is more to be respected than a theist who behaves morally according to the objective set of morals (if there is such a thing) in order to please the God who dictated the morals.

And you're entitled to that opinion. I too believe that a theist who acts morally simply to please his God shouldn't be given the same respect as a person who behaves morally simply *because he ought*. But not all theists behave morally for that reason.

I suppose you can try to convince me that I am deluded in my experience. I know that the following events occured in my life:

- I tentatively believed in God.
- I rejected God, at least in part because my apprehension of his existence made it clear to my that certain activities in which I wished to engage were objectively wrong. In rejecting him, I managed to convince myself that these same activities were not objectively immoral
- I then accepted and believed in God once again. Again, I was convinced of the objectivity of certain moral truths. No, not because I knew God was watching, or that I had to please him; I knew that there were certain acts which I just should not do.

I don't expect this to be convincing to you. My point is, I was answering the original question in a way that I saw fit. No one need believe what I'm saying. I am giving a possible answer to the poster's question.

Mageth

onceuponapriori:

Bear in mind, I specifically said "at some point during their existence". I even allowed for the possibility that this could occur after their earthly demise.

You don't understand. I question too much, and have learned too much, to ever believe in the existence of the defined Christian God, and that goes for other defined gods as well. Undefined ones I have no knowledge of, so can't make much of a statement about.

Note that I was raised a Christian, in quite a devout Xian home. I was taught at an early age, indoctrinated really, that the Christian God was real. So early on, I "accepted" his existence because that was what my parents and church passed down to me. This is not special or general revelation - it's religious indoctrination. Hindus, Muslims, Xians, etc. all over the world inherit their beliefs this way. And many if not most of the Atheists on this board had the same experience of indoctrination into belief.

As I grew older, I never exprienced any sort of "special revelation," and "general revelation" revealed to me not the existence of God, but the wonders of the natural world and questions about God's existence. And as I learned science, and having a naturally questioning, even skeptical, mind, I started to question the structures of my beliefs. And the structures on which my beliefs were based (all indoctrinated by my religion) fell apart with close scrutiny. Over several years, I shed more and more of the structure of my beliefs, with the belief in god (learned by indoctrination, not revelation) finally falling about three years ago, though I had reached agnosticism some times before that. During all this time, not one peep from the alleged god, even though I often asked him to reveal himself to me.

So trust me, I've looked at the "revealed truth" claim thoroughly for much of the 47 years of my life. I've concluded that the "revealed" part should be replaced with "indoctrinated". Even the bit about "special" and "general" revelation are based on the bible, and thus learned by indoctrination from that source.

And trust me, I didn't become an atheist so I could act immorally.

And also trust me, I'm not going to wake up one day and say "Aah, what a pretty sunrise! There really is a god, and it's the god of the bible!" I know too much.

As far as the "I even allowed for the possibility that this could occur after their earthly demise" bit, resorting to magic or to unproven, unprovable claims such as an afterlife is not exactly fair in such a discussion - by using it, you're assuming the existence of God. Especially since, from my point of view, there is no "after" my earthly demise.

And note that if there is an afterlife, it's also possible for you to learn there that you were wrong, and that the god you believed in doesn't exist.

For the purposes of this discussion, take "sin" to mean "to act imorally". Or, if that does not suffice, I'll try to remember to avoid using the term.

When you used the term previously, you meant it to mean violation of your god's Objective Morality. And I assume in the above definition "acting immorally", "immorally" in your mind would mean the same thing - violating your god's Objective Morality.

Special Revelation is not required by some to believe. God gives each person that which is necessary (note: not sufficient) for them to believe and accept his grace (*at some point during their existence*).

"General revelation" has not, and will not, be enough for me to believe. So can I expect some sort of special revelation to be coming my way? (Remember: resorting to the afterlife is not fair).

I made no claim as to how one would derive these moral truths once the existence of God is apprehended. I don't really need to either.

If you can't describe how they are derived, then how objective can they possibly be?

Inherent in my definition of God is: if one were to apprehend the existence of God, one would also apprehend the objectivity of certain moral truths.

That is a totally unsubstantiated claim, and in all a non-answer to my post. What are these objective "moral truths"? And yes, you need to explain how they are grasped just by apprehending the existence of God. My guess is that you have to resort to some sort of divine revelation from the Word of God explanation.

I'm not bothered by this at all. I believe that people who do actually apprehend the existence of God (ie, the God I am referring to) will agree to the objectivity of certain moral truths. The fact that some nominal Christians disagree, while interesting, really is irelevant to my position.

So basically you're saying those that agree with you (the god you're referring to) will agree with you, while those that don't agree with you don't agree with you, are "nominal" christians and don't "actually apprehend the existence of my god", and are therefore irrelevant. Whooee, strong "no true Scotsman" argument there.

The point is that you've given no definition of what these "objective certain moral truths" are. What are they? If they're objective, that should be easy for you to do. Where are they objectively recorded, where can they be found? If they're objective, you should be able to point me to them. Are they clear and unambiguous, or can they be interpreted differently by different people in different situations? If not all Christians can agree on them, how truly objective can they be? If apprehending a slightly different god than the one you apprehend leads one to a different set of "moral truths", just how reliable is this system for deriving "objective" morals?

Of my God, it does. So I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Once again, as I said before, the mere existence of a god doesn't necessarily require that certain activities be objectively wrong. But apparently you're attempting to dodge this by including in your definition of God a set of "objective" morals for humans that are part of that God. I claim that any set of objective morals for humans are not part of the god, and thus can't be apprehended merely by coming to believe in the god, but are dictated or handed down by the god in some fashion, i.e. through the bible, after coming to belief in the god. And the bible does not include any set of morals that can be objectively applied, as is evidenced by the real-world subjectivity of the application of what's found in the bible. So merely accepting the existence of a god does not reveal to one directly the existence of a set of objective morals associated with that god. One is still left with the task of subjectively determining what those morals are.

- I rejected God, at least in part because my apprehension of his existence made it clear to my that certain activities in which I wished to engage were objectively wrong. In rejecting him, I managed to convince myself that these same activities were not objectively immoral

Just by this description, I don't think you could claim to have been an "atheist". I know I'm also risking a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but I think there's an important distinction to be made. An atheist does not reject God; an atheist lacks belief in god(s) or outright does not believe in god(s). In becoming an atheist, I didn't reject god; I reached a point of non-belief in god. I can't reject something that doesn't exist.

What you appear to have done is rationalized yourself into a position where you could behave as you wished without fearing a god that you still believed in. That's my opinion, reached by reading your post; I may be wrong. Correct me if so.

Did you ever truly lack belief in god(s), and I mean all gods, not just the Xian god? When you were in that state, did you feel like you were in rebellion against God, or did you not believe there was a God to be in rebellion against? Answer honestly (I assume you would); the answers could go a long way towards supporting your position.