God creates only atheists.

[Jagella]

If the Christian god exists, then he has created us all (with some help from men and women having sex and women bearing children). Oddly, though, this god does not create us as Christians but as atheists. Creating us this way requires babies to be taught Christianity by their parents and elders which involves risk that babies may be taught the "wrong kind of Christianity," they won't be taught Christianity at all, they may be taught a "false" religion, or worst of all--they may taught that Christianity like all religions is a con game.

These facts beg the...

Question for Debate: Why does God create us as atheists?

I think it's safe to say that God could create us all as Christians, and it seems strange to me that he would not create us as Christians. Since we are born as atheists, it appears to cast doubt on the existence of any gods. Belief in gods then is not innate but was invented by people who wish to control other people.

For further reading see Ryan T. Cragun's What You Don't Know About Religion (but Should), Pages 27-31.

[William]

bjs: Im not sure that the mindless you here refer to as atheism comes naturally to humans. Certainly people are born without the ability to think rationally.

William: Humans are born with the potential to think rationally. Some use this toward supporting theism, and others in supporting atheism. We are all born potentially to become theists or atheist based on our opinions and interpretations of the data we are experiencing through the human form.

bjs: However, with few exception as people grow we seek more complex idea and become capable of abstract rational thought.

William: Generally non-theists think of this as 'just the imagination' which is their way of saying, "If a connection with GOD requires human imagination, then we declare human imagination in the derogatory."
Generally the non-theist develops complex algorithms of structured thought patterns in order to maintain their position against evolving theist-based complex algorithms of structured thought patterns.
Atheists are therefore not BORN, but rather, they develop alongside developing theists. Some calling themselves "Atheists" cling to the idea that "everyone is BORN an atheist" and are as dogmatic as some of the theists they criticize for "being too dogmatic", unable to move from that position. Perhaps through fear of something? Whatever the reason, their dogmatism isn't helping their case, as far as I - as a Theist - have ever been able to tell.

bjs: History has shown that, on a cultural level, this ability inevitably leads to a search for God.

William: This is clearly factual. The reason atheism even exists depends upon the existence of theism. "A search for God" is most natural.
If my particular theology is something to go by, being that -quintessentially we are all aspects of GOD - no matter how deeply hidden that fact is from us in our experience of having a beginning, that very thing will always prompt us to search for our true self among the chaos of voices claiming we are 'this' or 'that'.


bjs: So we might be born as creatures incapable of grasping complex thoughts, but we grow in creatures who by nature search for God.

William: This would seem to be true. This would mean that those calling themselves 'atheists' and in particular, those atheists claiming they were 'born' atheists, are completely unaware of GOD through a focused and willful attempt to keep that information well away from their awareness, content - I suppose - to self identify as that which will eventually be no more - the form itself.

bjs: If there is a God, it would seem that He does not want us to remain mindless infants.

William: It appears to be that GOD does mind how we choose to see ourselves. How we see GOD... given how we see ourselves... does have a bearing on outcomes...
But most of us do not unfold in this experience as mindless infants...it appears GOD does not want that either...so even that we are free to see ourselves and GOD, however we choose, and the outcomes are not always great in that, it appears GOD wants it that way for a reason. Abstract rational thought must be able to lead us to that reason. Mindless infants are not capable of going there, which is why we do not remain mindless infants.

[ttruscott]

We are aspects/particles of GOD and in that, eternal beings.

Does this not imply that GOD is also evil, maybe eternal evil?

IF a light source cannot create the dark, ie a match when lit will NEVER fill the room with darkness, can a source of darkness (evil) ever create light (righteousness)? I doubt it. It is the great fallacy that light and dark, evil and righteousness, are part of each other.

I, we, and the Bible considers YHWH to be light in whom is no dark at all... so, do we follow the GOD of light or the God who is (part) dark?

[Tcg]

History has shown that, on a cultural level, this ability inevitably leads to a search for God.

No, history does not show this. This article from Cambridge University clearly contradicts your claim:

• Disbelieve it or not, ancient history suggests that atheism is as natural to humans as religion
  
  We tend to see atheism as an idea that has only recently emerged in secular Western societies, Whitmarsh said. The rhetoric used to describe it is hyper-modern. In fact, early societies were far more capable than many since of containing atheism within the spectrum of what they considered normal.
  
  Rather than making judgements based on scientific reason, these early atheists were making what seem to be universal objections about the paradoxical nature of religion " the fact that it asks you to accept things that arent intuitively there in your world. The fact that this was happening thousands of years ago suggests that forms of disbelief can exist in all cultures, and probably always have.
  
  https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/dis ... s-religion

[William]

ttruscott: Add into this mix that NO Church teaches that Satan was created evil yet most teach that HIS sheep, HIS future heavenly Bride, were ALL created disgustingly evil and corrupt evil in Adam's sin!!!

<head shake, facepalm>

Divine Insight: Agreed. This theology makes no sense at all. The problem is that PCE doesn't help. All it does is push the very same problem back into an imagined life before birth. But the problem is that the same problem would then exist in that previously life. In other words, in order for PCE to be a solution to this problem, the people who became evil in their previously life would have needed to have yet another previously life before that that would explain how they became evil in their current life. So PCE fails to address this paradox.

William: This is correct. The <head shake, facepalm> remains.

Divine Insight: A far better solution is to simply recognize that evolution by natural selection makes far more sense. The reason the world isn't perfect is because it was never created by a perfect God to begin with. Period.

William: <head shake, facepalm>
This is a 'better solution' for those embracing the theories created through the position of "atheism" - especially the theory that all people a born atheists...except that it appears oxymoron coming from non-theists. Arguing that If a GOD exists, THEN the GOD must not be 'perfect' might do against general Christian ideas of GOD and even specific, such as PCE, but really it is only showing that the claim by these, that "GOD is perfect" requires examination.
If the non-theist claims that "life is not perfect therefore IF GOD exists, THEN GOD cannot be perfect." then it is up to the non-theist to explain what they mean by 'perfect'.
Having explained, they then should be able to show WHY an imperfect GOD would create an imperfect situation for us all to experience.
Rather, they - for the most part - excuse themselves from having to, on account that they are 'atheists' (even BORN atheist!!) and therefore their answer is a simplistic "GODs do NOT exist."


Divine Insight: That's rational thinking.

William: According to whom? Atheists?

Divine Insight: A theology that has a perfect God creating imperfect humans is not rational thinking. Even if he merely allows them to become imperfect by free will choice.

William: Please attempt to explain WHY this would have to be the case?

Divine Insight: Keep in mind, that this would need to be true even in PCE, so PCE doesn't solve this problem in any case.

William: Agreed. The problem of good beings choosing evil shows clearly that any creator of said good beings, wasn't perfectly able to create good beings.
The defense of the theology is along the lines that "Free will to choose between the two"
...shows clearly that good and evil existed prior to this being the case. It did not come about through lack of evil.
The defense for this is that evil didn't actually exist BEFORE the choice to commit evil was undertaken..only GOOD actually existed.
This means that GOOD had to have been that which chose EVIL. That is oxymoron.

We could both agree that this is 'imperfect' - a product of imperfection.

Where we do differ is in relation to our chosen positions on the matter.

It is conceivable to me - using the device of abstract rational thought available - that the Quintessential GOD is neither "good" nor "evil" in Its (his/hers) natural state of being. It does not judge itself "good" or "evil".
But in creating 'things' in which to experience and even perhaps discover Itself completely - perhaps in an attempt at giving Itself a 'reason for existing' - the creating of these things resulted in uncovering 'good' and 'evil' because the GOD was not 'perfect' in the things It created.

IT does not just itself 'good' or 'evil' on account of 'imperfections' in the creations. IT accepts without judgement, Its 'imperfections' - iow - It does not 'see' - 'imperfections'.
We - in our natural state - tend to see things as 'good' 'evil' and thus 'imperfect'.
iow
WE in our state, declare things 'good' or 'evil' and in that, we discover imperfection, which naturally 'rubs off' on the Creator of said imperfections.
WE are in effect a limited version of the Creator GOD, discovering our "imperfections' because we believe 'good and evil' actually exist ...while we continue to 'see' good and evil, we also continue to 'see' imperfection.


Divine Insight: You would still need a God who creates imperfect humans. When he does it would be irrelevant. This life, or a previous life, wouldn't make any difference at all.

William: Perhaps then, the reality is that GOD looks 'at' US and GOD 'sees' perfection, but is unable to easily convey that information to US, so that we might 'see' ourselves/one another in the same way GOD 'sees' US. GOD sees US as particles of GODS-SELF. WE see ourselves/one another as 'good/evil' and thus 'imperfect'.

[Jagella]

Im not sure that the mindless you here refer to as atheism comes naturally to humans.

Then why are we from the womb atheists? Surely the Christian god could plant a seed of faith in us from conception.

Certainly people are born without the ability to think rationally.

That's not true. It may take a while for our reasoning abilities to fully develop, but the "seed of our reasoning abilities" is present in all of us as we gestate in our mothers' wombs.

However, with few exception as people grow we seek more complex idea and become capable of abstract rational thought.

Well, theism must start somewhere, and I agree that as people mature, we ask more questions and seek answers to those questions. Some people obviously either arrived at the idea of gods as a way of attempting to answer such difficult questions, or they found the idea of gods useful for psychological or social reasons. None of this theistic thought requires any real gods but only a perceived need for them, and theism obviously does not affect all people so it does not appear to "come naturally."

History has shown that, on a cultural level, this ability inevitably leads to a search for God. So we might be born as creatures incapable of grasping complex thoughts, but we grow in creatures who by nature search for God.

Which god do we inevitably search for? There are millions of gods, and they vary from one culture to another. However, whatever culture they come from, they are without exception based on those cultures and those cultures only. The Bible god, for example, originated in Israel and no other place or culture in the world. He is distinctly Jewish although he arose with many pagan features reflecting the cultures that Israel came from.

If there is a God, it would seem that He does not want us to remain mindless infants.

Hmmm. Is that why he sends us missionaries to tell us something he could have planted in us from our births? Sadly for God, not all of us get that information, and even if we do, it is often contradictory.

[William]

William: Quintessentially we are all aspects of GOD - no matter how deeply hidden that fact is from us in our experience of having a beginning, that very thing will always prompt us to search for our true self among the chaos of voices claiming we are 'this' or 'that'.

ttruscott: Does this not imply that GOD is also evil, maybe eternal evil?

William: If GOD is 'also evil' does this not imply that GOD is 'also good'?
And that being the case, how then can GOD be 'maybe eternal evil' without also being 'maybe eternal good'?

ttruscott: IF a light source cannot create the dark, ie a match when lit will NEVER fill the room with darkness, can a source of darkness (evil) ever create light (righteousness)?

William: IF you are to regard this universe in the context of an adequate mirror expression of its Creator GOD, THEN you must be able to accept that - all that is the universe - came from 'the dark' and 'the light' is the material conformation of this fact.
In that, one can obviously accept that, yes indeed, from what we see of the universe, light has come from darkness.
If you choose to then use darkness as an analogy for 'evil' and light as an an analogy for 'good', you would be forced to accept that 'good came from evil'.
If 'darkness' is use as an analogy for 'ignorance' then it could be said that light is both 'good' and 'evil' and is created from/through ignorance.

ttruscott: I doubt it. It is the great fallacy that light and dark, evil and righteousness, are part of each other.

William: So you claim. But your claims are based in faulty premise to begin with.
Essentially the ignorance cannot be seen without the 'good' and 'evil' that the light produces through the process.
The fault is not in the light or the dark. The fault is in the mind which interprets these things the way it is willed to, by the person controlling that mind..

ttruscott: I, we, and the Bible considers YHWH to be light in whom is no dark at all... so, do we follow the GOD of light or the God who is (part) dark?

William: The problem is that "I, we, and the Bible" are conflating The First Source with The Demiurge.
In doing so, "I, we, and the Bible" have used darkness as an analogy for 'evil' rather than 'ignorance'.
To "consider YHWH to be light in whom is no dark at all..." is to understand that The First Source is without ignorance.
The creator of this universe is not directly The First Source.

Thus, either the belief is that YHWH - as the Demiurge which created this universe - did so from darkness (which is what the universe clearly shows us is the case) OR that YHWH is The First Source, and did not create this universe, but created the Demiurge to perform that role.
Christianity has conflated to two roles, and hence the confusion this institution has created in the world.

PCE has not given US any clearer way in which to see through that confusion. It only extends the problem as one created prior to this universe being created...in the way that it obviously was...

[Jagella]

They are stuck behind a double barreled doctrine that 1. we are created at conception or birth (no one knows which) and 2. we are evil from conception or birth.

According to some passages in the New Testament like Matthew 7:11, God has created evil people. (I wonder what kept him from creating good people.) Of course, not all of us evil people will perish but--if Christian theology is correct--some of us will be redeemed being granted the gift of righteousness through the atoning gift of Christ's death on the cross. I've often wondered why God would create people he knows would reject this gift and end up in hell. Couldn't he have created only people he knew would be redeemed and saved from perishing in the lake of fire?

They'd much rather solve their cognitive dissonance with double think, ie, believing two opposites are both true at the same time (GOD cannot create evil yet HE creates evil people by making them human in Adam's sin) than even consider the theology that rejects both these things are true at the same time...

Many Christians try to resolve this paradox by saying that God only creates evil indirectly. That is, he has created people who can and will do evil, but that evil is directly the choice of people rather than of God. So according to this logic, God is off the hook as far as evil is concerned, and we are to blame for evil rather than God.

I'm not so sure this logic is sound, however. I think God is responsible for evil for the simple fact that his act of creating people ultimately resulted in evil even though it was indirect. If I created a robot who went on a rampage killing people, would't I be responsible for what my creation has done even if I didn't intend to have my robot kill people? Most people including most Christians would probably hold me responsible for those deaths, yet they don't apply the same judgment to their god.

A question I have been asking Christians to think about for years now.

What is your answer to the question for debate? My answer is that it makes no sense for God to create us as atheists. Since religion in almost all cases results from indoctrination, I see religion and the gods as human creations.

[Jagella]

It wouldn't mean that at all. If Christianity required rational thought then only rational people would he Christians, but just the opposite is true.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, DI. For one thing, people really aren't "rational or irrational," but their behavior and claims may or may not be rational. In addition, "rationality" understood as the use of reason, can be applied to much of Christian theology and apologetics some of which has been derived by brilliant logicians. So Christianity is to a large extent the result of rational thought or reasoning. It's just that much of the reasoning employed by Christians to substantiate their beliefs is arguably faulty.

So how might we explain this oxymoron, "rational Christianity"? There's a lot of reasoning in Christianity because many Christians seek reasons to believe that the truth claims of Christianity are true. Yes, the reasons they come up with may not be convincing to many of us, but they are reasons nevertheless.

Anyway, I thought it wise to put in my two-cents worth here. It's not a good idea to label people as irrational because they belong to a particular religion. Many Christians do use rational thought to defend their beliefs which upon examination may be more of a liability than an asset.

[bjs]

Im not sure that the mindless you here refer to as atheism comes naturally to humans.

Then why are we from the womb atheists? Surely the Christian god could plant a seed of faith in us from conception.

Certainly people are born without the ability to think rationally.

That's not true. It may take a while for our reasoning abilities to fully develop, but the "seed of our reasoning abilities" is present in all of us as we gestate in our mothers' wombs.

If you genuinely believe that the "seed of our reasoning abilities" is present in all of us as we gestate in our mothers' wombs then how do you know people are atheists in the womb?

Unless you remember life prior to your birth, or you have conversed with someone prior to his or her birth, I can see no way for you to know that the seed of our reasoning abilities does not include faith in God.

Your own argument would suggest that the premise of this thread is nothing but fantasy and assumption.

[Tcg]

Unless you remember life prior to your birth, or you have conversed with someone prior to his or her birth, I can see no way for you to know that the seed of our reasoning abilities does not include faith in God.

You could resolve this issue by providing verifiable evidence that the seed of our reasoning abilities does include faith in God. I suspect this issue won't be resolved in this manner.



Tcg