Why won't God convince atheists?

[Hatuey]

Many atheists are so for valid and defendable reasons. Why would a punishing deity choose not to make himself known to reasonable people who do not believe he exists?

A decent god would know how to convince decent people to believe and care for him as he cared for those decent people.

What sort of god doesn't care to convince sensible people that he exists?

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 278 by Theunis]

You are in your mind rightfully belabouring the point of a labeling someone for it makes it easier to see someone with reference to a label. Labels however give him the incorrectly perceived notion that he now knows that person and how he thinks. Labels are generalizations like the average person, yet there is no such thing as the average person. Using an argument based on such things could sometimes be correct but when referring it to an individual it is not so. Each and all have their own private thoughts even though some may overlap with the thoughts of others.

In a debate to speak to the person and not address the subject is no longer a debate it is an exchange of personal data quite irrelevant to the debate, for the debate concerns the subject matter and what is said on the subject and not what one thinks is said based on a preconceived faulty idea of what one thinks the debater is thinking because you know a thing or two about him. To ask to be spoon fed is a show of laziness or fear that something may be misinterpreted and put you in a poor light.
Darn it that is why if you don't understand something then you should ask. Ask and it will be given. Seek and you will find. There are no stupid question only stupid answers by those who attempt to cover up their own lack of knowledge.

and your quote further down

You:>>" Instead of presuming something first ask what is meant" (What if this includes asking what your religious beliefs are or contain?)"<<
This is only relevant if you first state what you wish to address and not make a sweeping request based on the idea that as you have a label all other things must have one. Karen Kierkegaard said if you label me you negate me, meaning you have became a label and are no longer a person.
Perhaps you and others don't understand that I have already, in my own way, summed it up by indicating what is now part of my core.

Soren Kierkegaard (darn autocorrect!) 'labels' the labeler in the same way he accuses. Sheesh! Not all labels are intended to negate.

Why bother having a name, if 'labeling' is always, purely negating?

Labeling is neutral. I agree with you that too often, labels are used to 'negate' a person into a conveniently inferior entity. It happens all the time, it's a sad fact of human nature when it's on the run, in defense mode.

But labeling is not always a 'defensive' tactic to negate someone. No doubt you don't mind most of the labels applied to you, like 'male' or 'adult' or 'believer'. Labels help us communicate, so each communicator can express paragraphs or pages of information into a word or two. Labels are a convenience and a clarifyer.

And anyway, no matter what label gets stuck on you by another, there is no such thing as a label acting to LIMIT the richness and depth of who you are.

I will promise you, if and when you feel comfortable sharing more, that I won't slap a label on you. I wouldn't want folks around here to slap certain labels on me, either. But at some point, if participating on this forum becomes important in a longer term way, it will be worth the risk of being labelled and possibly negated. You can ALWAYS negate the negaters .

I understand the reluctance, especially if you've been mocked (who hasn't?). In particular, I fear the label of "Mystical Woo" being slapped on me because I am open to the idea of panentheism, moreso than a conventional God of the Christians, Jews and Muslims. All ya gotta do is say "if there is a "God", perhaps "God" is the universe" to get a Mystical Woo label slapped on your forehead. In truth, I am about as 'woo' as my parrot is, and he is the most cut-n-dried, frill-free, rational being I know.

I'm sorry you've felt so pressured, I'm 'sorry' when anyone gets to feeling that way. You have just as much to offer, just as important stuff, as anyone. As far as I can tell we're equals according to the rules and in practice around here. It's tough to suddenly be surrounded by a bunch of people assertively digging into your cherished beliefs like vultures on a carcass. It could be a valuable opportunity to strengthen yourself, clarify what you do believe even better, if a person would take it.

[Theunis]

[Replying to post 279 by Hamsaka]

I wholehearted agree with you in all respects.

But the question is how do you label someone who considers atheism and theism as old hat, yet who understands and appreciates their views. I told them this more than once. . Okay my label is my name nothing else can label me but if someone tries I will not a tantrum but I will tell them of their incorrect perception.

How do you label one who says he embraces the Universe. We are all one.
Unfortunately people cannot bear to know that you are not of theirs or of their opposition and that you can observe all their ways and appreciate them for what they are. This does not include fanatics who are the curse of the earth. Why the heck label anyone for that matter, Some labels stink to high heaven but it is not the one who is labelled it is the labeller who emits the pong.

Okay I will kick an atheist or a theists under his Jack until his Johnny falls off if he becomes fanatical and starts spewing hate and dissent. Does this label me an anti-fanatic?

Hmm I said Karen Kierkegaard but it was taken from someone else's signature on another forum without checking it, now I find that person was wrong not by someone screaming at me but just by using the correct name. (Thank you).

I am sweet with what people say to me so don't worry about it or feel that you need give me a pep talk. I take things from where they come and how they come. Even on a BASIC programming Forum someone flamed me because without saying he was wrong I posted the correct information. I merely replied that it is useless to flame me for I have this impenetrable field that surrounds me it is called Love and Compassion.

By the way I do not feel threatened, pressurized nor become exasperated. My whole life I have spoken to babies and ancients with respect and as an equal. I make mistakes but others make four mistakes and to not deny or repeatedly point fingers in a sly and underhand manner so that I may say I am pure as the driven snow. I see the dig and smile. It makes me happy when people find time to try using me as a punch bag, it helps them get rid of their ire and I am unaffected.

A lot of flack are mere words with no meaning to me. I just pity the bumpkin who indulges in it. It comes across as yada yada blah blah blah.

There I hope this helps some others to get another bit of insight on how I see things

Peace be yours
Or from that other bit of me. May the force be with you
or do you prefer Shalom.

[Clownboat]

When one says the foregoing he states what he thinks he saw and if such a perception is incorrect and he argues it is not then he says he knows the other person better than that person knows. Pure arrogance. Such a person is not a spokesman for anyone else he can only speak of his own interpretation.

You're just being difficult, not clever. Will you allow me to prove this claim?
Yes or no, do words and actions you see/hear people do speak to the character of the person?

What I said is not the same as provide but remember provide means make available for use; supply. So you did in fact make it available for use. However it was a mental image/impression regarding me based on what you think you saw. viz the your interpretation of what you think I said that you attributed to me.

I have only just begun to see your words/actions here on this forum. I have yet to form an image of you that could be argued as being accurate. It might be, but the sample size is too small currently and also not the topic of debate.
Either way, you failed to show that I provided a mental image of you like you falsely claimed.

Now that is once again your personal opinion for I gave an idea of how you may be reacting from an unconscious level and thus what you think or believe is in doubt.

I'm not arguing that it is not personal opinion to find a claim like "you will only know about me what I allow you to know about me" to be arrogant and ignorant. You are making the mistake in assuming I have formed an image of you being ignorant/arrogant due to one statement that I personally find to be such.

Are you prepared to defend a position that only arrogant or ignorant people will ever say arrogant or ignorant statements? Or will you acknowledge that a well informed person (not ignorant) may say something ignorant (for example)?

"To the bold, you must love you some irony?"

This is not understood, please elucidate as I have never come across such a saying. It may be a product of your culture but it does not exist in mine.

No need. I trust it is not lost on the readers here and expanding on this will not further the debate.

My question was to obtain your motivating factor and thus a better insight as to why you said so. Without it I cannot answer you in full.

[/quote]
My motivating factor was "interest in your response".

I maintain this to be arrogance for he who makes such a statement is guilty of arrogance. However in view of your explanation it appears to have been made in ignorance of how others perceive such things. Compare it to the manner in which you incorrectly perceive things; "attempting to debate" is making an effort to debate without success which is not the same as "debating" which rather indicates that a debate is in progress and it is not an attempt to get something going. I thus maintain that "attempting" is implying that the other is not considered to be equipped to debate something. Of course I am well aware that you probably meant attempting to continue with the debate. But hey say what you mean or expect to be taken to task. Which merely confirms what you said about things may be queried. I made a statement regarding yours and you did not correct it!

I stand by my statement and explanation. If it is important for you to argue that I must be arrogant, or whatever your point is that you are trying to make, you may continue for all I care.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

This totally irrelevant and meaningless or is it a strawman tactic or a red herring or merely not understanding my question in context?
You miss the point completely as to what was the concept involved in my discourse with ytrewq on which it is apparent you have based your post. The fact is there was no concept involved for it concerned me personally and she asked personal question that are up to me to reply to or not. She was fishing but the fish did not bite.

Let's let the readers decide shall we?
Post #266 Ytrewq:
However, you have been active in debating various Biblical claims, and in such cases you do indeed have an obligation to exactly state your position, just like the rest of us. It is intellectually dishonest to force others to guess your position when discussing a particular point, and then later to say 'what makes you think I believe that anyway'.

It would be simplicity to answer for to ask a question is normally to seek knowledge. If I were a Muslim I would answer you. If not I would reply I cannot speak on something I don't know anything about and that you should rather pose your question to a Muslim.. However if you were to ask me what is my impression then it is another kettle of fish.

And what would you say when asked to describe your religious stance in a nutshell?

You are in your mind rightfully belabouring the point of a labeling someone for it makes it easier to see someone with reference to a label. Labels however give him the incorrectly perceived notion that he now knows that person and how he thinks. Labels are generalizations like the average person, yet there is no such thing as the average person. Using an argument based on such things could sometimes be correct but when referring it to an individual it is not so. Each and all have their own private thoughts even though some may overlap with the thoughts of others.

Good talk. Now what would you say when asked to describe your religious stance in a nutshell?

In a debate to speak to the person and not address the subject is no longer a debate it is an exchange of personal data quite irrelevant to the debate, for the debate concerns the subject matter and what is said on the subject and not what one thinks is said based on a preconceived faulty idea of what one thinks the debater is thinking because you know a thing or two about him. To ask to be spoon fed is a show of laziness or fear that something may be misinterpreted and put you in a poor light.
Darn it that is why if you don't understand something then you should ask. Ask and it will be given. Seek and you will find. There are no stupid question only stupid answers by those who attempt to cover up their own lack of knowledge.

Let's test for intellectual honesty shall we?
What would you say when asked to describe your religious stance in a nutshell? When reading what someone has to say, no matter what you think, nor if you are paranoid about labels, it is beneficial to know the starting position of the person you are having a discussion/debate with. Why bother asking an atheist what god they believe in?

This is only relevant if you first state what you wish to address and not make a sweeping request based on the idea that as you have a label all other things must have one. Karen Kierkegaard said if you label me you negate me, meaning you have became a label and are no longer a person.

Please start a new thread if you wish to discuss that labeling a person makes them no longer a person.

Perhaps you and others don't understand that I have already, in my own way, summed it up by indicating what is now part of my core.

Oh no, I think we get that you are doing this in your own way. I just prefer straight up honest answers myself.

I suggest that ALL people are full of mystery. Your perception of me indicating that I suggest that i am a mystery is as far as I am concerned incorrect. But cheese it and enjoy it, it is no skin of my nose for you can think of others as it please you.

I said others will draw their own conclusions. This is a fact. Argue it at your own peril.

Of course I agree and I did indicate that yours concerning me were faulty so what is the problem, since faulty does not indicate total error but something that has some faults in it.

What is the problem? The problem is that you think I have drawn conclusions about you, when in fact, I'm attempting to gather information.

Your mother nor siblings are relevant.

Of course they are. I used them in support of the fact that after all those years together they did not truly know me even if it is volumes more than any outsider.

Irrelevant. Your mother nor you siblings are here for questioning. You can claim anything you want and we cannot verify said claims. Empty claims are irrelevant in debate. To further my point, my mother and siblings shared some personal information they happen to know about you with me. Would you encourage me to post this nonsense, or do you see how such claims are in fact irrelevant?

Your words are quite clear for when you say they speak volumes of myself it is your direct observation and thus it is you saying that it speaks volumes to you.

You need to stop making this about you. You claimed I said that I have volumes of information revealed about you. This claim is false and you have failed to back it up. Will you be honorable and retract this claim?

Are you prepared to defend a position that words and actions don't reveal things about a person?

I have already said they do and even requested it be done. I also thanked your for doing so!

Your previous post betray you:
Theunis: "Gee whiz did you already know this (holistic healing stuff) from what you incorrectly perceived? See what I mean you will only know what I reveal to you through what I say on this forum or what I tell you, no more."

Readers, see the bold. Does such a claim coincide with "words and actions reveal things about a person"?

I will stand by the claim that people will reveal themselves by what they say and do.

I still smile for you are saying exactly what I said.

Once again:
Theunis said: "you will only know what I reveal to you"

Once again you have not understood that I used it as an example to explain that you will only know things about me that I reveal to you.

I think it has been established that we disagree about how we will only know things about you that you decide to reveal to us.

But then you seem to agree as well:
Clownboat: "I will stand by the claim that people will reveal themselves by what they say and do".
Theunis: "I still smile for you are saying exactly what I said".
And then! Theunis: "you will only know what I reveal to you".

Now I'm confused again. Do people reveal themselves by what they say or do or don't they? You can't have it both ways. If yes, then it logically follows that we will begin to learn about people due to what they say and do. This is no different for me than it is for you and it is still true even if people make nonsensical claims like, "you will only know about me what I choose to reveal".

Please read what I said about theism/atheism being old hat etc.

Why, will that provide the information I'm looking for? Is this just another dodge?

Please do so; I would really appreciate it. But we should rather continue with the debate than attempt to do so without people dragging in personal questions irrelevant to the OP's post.

There are those of us that find it relevant.
Post 266: "However, you have been active in debating various Biblical claims, and in such cases you do indeed have an obligation to exactly state your position, just like the rest of us. It is intellectually dishonest to force others to guess your position when discussing a particular point, and then later to say 'what makes you think I believe that anyway'."

I do hope that Namaste and Shalom told you a bit more of me.

I would prefer to hear it from you, that way, we can avoid comments like, "what makes you think I believe that anyway".

Clownboat: "Words and actions will reveal things about a person."
Theunis: "I agree, in fact I have been saying just that."
Theunis: "However, you will only know about me what I choose to reveal."
Clownboat: What happened to words and actions?

[Danmark]

Me: >>"Forever you will only see that of me that which I wish you to see."<<
You: >>" This is not true.
Your words and actions here speak volumes about yourself, ....just like they do for every other person that participates here"<<
When one says the foregoing he states what he thinks he saw and if such a perception is incorrect and he argues it is not then he says he knows the other person better than that person knows. Pure arrogance. Such a person is not a spokesman for anyone else he can only speak of his own interpretation.

Me:>>"Thank you for doing what I said. viz. learn about me from what I say. From the little you have learned so far and your assumptions I can say you know me not and that you have a distorted image of me."<<
You: >>"I did not provide an image of you. If you think I did, please supply it."<<
What I said is not the same as provide but remember provide means make available for use; supply. So you did in fact make it available for use. However it was a mental image/impression regarding me based on what you think you saw. viz the your interpretation of what you think I said that you attributed to me.

You:>>"For example, the above comes across as both arrogant and ignorant. If a person (generic) continually shows such traits, it becomes apparent that such traits are common in said person (generic)."<<
Me:>>"Your perception is faulty. Instead of presuming something first ask what is meant. But watch what you say for some may reply - Do you profess that I continually show such traits. If so your own arrogance and ignorance is showing."<<
You:>>"This does not change how the above comes across."<<
Now that is once again your personal opinion for I gave an idea of how you may be reacting from an unconscious level and thus what you think or believe is in doubt.

Moderator Intervention

I am not going to single anyone out by name, but this type of exchange has been going on for sometime on this thread. It has almost nothing to do with the OP. I recognize that to some extent perception, motivation, understanding issues may need to be discussed and can be interesting, but this has now gone way off topic and has become highly personal, though not necessarily attacking or mean spirited. However, to facilitate civil discussion please do not suggest the motives, intents, personal histories of other posters in anyway that suggests you understand better than they do, their own inner thoughts. Simply argue the issues, not the person. Analyze what the sentences say, not your projections about others' intent, character, or abilities. Almost all of us can do better in this regard.

If you want to start a thread on perception theory and how personality forms or the unique way individuals sense their environments, you are free to do so in an appropriate sub forum.

Please do not respond to this intervention on this thread. You may PM someone or discuss it on the "Suggestions" subforum: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2
Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[KenRU]

Many atheists are so for valid and defendable reasons. Why would a punishing deity choose not to make himself known to reasonable people who do not believe he exists?

A decent god would know how to convince decent people to believe and care for him as he cared for those decent people.

What sort of god doesn't care to convince sensible people that he exists?

Just finished reading this entire thread. Not sure if that is a good or bad thing though I'm quite certain it says something about me. But I'm not exactly sure what, lol.

What stands out to me, regarding the question above, is that god, in his infinite wisdom and power, created a sentient being, with free will, knowing full well that some would utilize this free will (through logic or other means) and come to the conclusion that he (god) doesn't exists.

God, knowing this outcome in advance of making his creation (because after all, he is god), still chooses to punish for all eternity some of his own creations, which he knew was going to happen from the get go.

In essence, god created some humans just to punish them.

The equivalent would be me growing both black and brown puppies in a lab knowing I would keep only the black ones and planning on throwing the brown ones into the fire place.

Im fairly certain everyone would consider that a barbaric act. But god gets a free pass?

-all the best

[Randall]

I don't know that throwing puppies into a fireplace constitutes a bad thing...I'd call it Korean barbecue.

[Zzyzx]

.

I don't know that throwing puppies into a fireplace constitutes a bad thing...I'd call it Korean barbecue.

This is indication that what we regard as "morality" is cultural rather than universal. Many societies regard dogs, horses and insects as food items while other societies condemn the practice and abhor the idea of eating any of them.

There is no sound or moral reason to regard cows as food and horses as off-limits (same for any similar considerations). It is a matter of cultural preference -- learned behavior.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 211 by Hatuey]

What were you taught. What is your background. What are your thoughts on crime do you lean towards crime? All questions and answers that you in your heart know. Your conscience will prevent you from killing someone if it is not already a desire in you to do so. Mind altering drugs cause havoc. But hey it is not me it is one of my beloved scapegoats God or the Devil whispering in my head. I never tire of saying as you think so you are. You can learn to program your thoughts and reap the fruits of benefit.

Now if we read the Abraham story we find that at one stage he appeared to lie to Isaac when asked where is the sacrifice and he replied God will provide.. Now was it that he knew that God would provide or was he just being a liar. Or did he go willingly because of what he had already been told about Isaac and his possible future. We are not privy to his thoughts so we cannot issue judgement upon this possibility.

Well quiet your mind and then try some meditative prayer. Then maybe you will be able to use Burl Ives's "Royal Telephone"

You could have said, "Well, anything's possible; try meditation!!" in a lot fewer words.

[Theunis]

[Replying to Hatuey]

Of course I could have but one liners are frowned upon and It was an explanation of what I thought. I prefer to qualify a statement and not just make a statement.

Hmm I could have also said meditation instead of meditative prayer. It is a different application of the basics of meditation.

[Theunis]

[Replying to post 283 by KenRU]

.... some would utilize this free will (through logic or other means) and come to the conclusion that he (god) doesn't exists.

Well once again if something does not exist for you how can you expect it to communicate with you? The hearing deaf hear less than the physical deaf who learn to use other senses.
If you ignore your neighbour and place him in Coventry, does he ever speak to you again even though he has the means to do so?

Religion is not an insult it is like a guide dog. If he prevents you from crossing a busy hazardous street and you push him aside, who is to blame for your broken body/mind? The dog or you?
You don't see the guide dog but feel his presence so that nudge in the mind could be the still voice you are hearing but are refusing to listening to.
Ernest Tubb - The Next Voice You Hear (?). (Relating to the conscience and the hell in one's mind)