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 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)

That 'nudge in the mind' doesn't support evidence that the 'nudge' is God's guidance, as opposed to some other gods' or one's own conditioned sense of morality.

Is there any evidence for the nonbeliever that this 'guide dog' (who's presence I am not disputing) is God? Sure there is. But what is the quality of that evidence? What is its nature? How is this evidence collected and interpreted, and by what methodology is it determined to be that of God? This is where Theists and non-Theists can't seem to agree on common ground. And it's behind the non-Theist assertion that there is an objective 'common ground' whether a person acknowledges it or not.

There is an objective reality, that does not change in the presence of the most devout 'belief' or 'faith' of the person. To not recognize there is an objective reality that stays the same in spite of belief has no better ground to stand on than those who get their spiritual views from "What the BLEEP Do We Know?" and "The Secret".

[FarWanderer]

[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?

When my existence hasn't been acknowledged, walking up to the person and saying "Hi." has worked pretty well for me in overcoming the problem. Does God have social anxiety issues?

The hearing deaf hear less than the physical deaf who learn to use other senses.

Is that a scientifically verified fact, or are you just saying it because it sounds all cool?

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?

A bad analogy. Ignore is the wrong word for something you don't believe in.

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?

More analogy, this time expressing how you view religion. Thanks for sharing. In my opinion, a more apt analogy for revelation-based religion is that it's a giant club with "I'm better than you" written across it in bold lettering.

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.

And here is a swipe with the afformentioned club. Hypocrisy, coming from one who complains about being called delusional.

Honestly if God wants me to hear and acknowledge him, all he has to do is actually make a sound. Surely he can do at least as well as my damned alarm clock.

[ytrewq]

Honestly if God wants me to hear and acknowledge him, all he has to do is actually make a sound. Surely he can do at least as well as my damned alarm clock.

On that matter, there is nothing to debate. If a claimed God is infinitely powerful, then by definition he is capable of communicating with anyone, yet many people hear no communication from a God. The conclusion is obvious. The claimed infinitely powerful God does not exist.

As you say, even the most modest REAL communication would suffice.

I have said it many times. If any of the claimed God(s) exist, then they sure are impotent! Like you say, can't even match an alarm clock! Given that the claims are invariably of an infinitely powerful God, we may safely say that the claimed God does not exist.

I'm with Einstein, who stated that in his view, the whole idea of a personal God is infantile.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 288 by Theunis]

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)

You throw these examples out to us as if they should be obvious to all. Religion shows the right path, and who is to blame if one choose not to follow the path that religion dictates that one should follow. Consider this however. Suppose religion is nothing but make believe, pure and simple. In that case you have been making decisions your entire life which are based on nothing more logically solid than make believe. That WOULD serve to explain all of those times in your life when your decisions ended in disaster and misery, wouldn't it?

[Theunis]

[Replying to post 289 by Hamsaka]

That 'nudge in the mind' doesn't support evidence that the 'nudge' is God's guidance, as opposed to some other gods' or one's own conditioned sense of morality.

Is there any evidence for the nonbeliever that this 'guide dog' (who's presence I am not disputing) is God? Sure there is. But what is the quality of that evidence? What is its nature? How is this evidence collected and interpreted, and by what methodology is it determined to be that of God? This is where Theists and non-Theists can't seem to agree on common ground. And it's behind the non-Theist assertion that there is an objective 'common ground' whether a person acknowledges it or not.

This is quite correct. But I must add that how one sees things is heavily based on the milieu or culture they live in. In this case culture refers to the sub-culture and its thoughts and ways. One person may see that nudge as coming from their subconscious, others will see it as from God, others may see it as the guiding hand of the "Holy spirit", others will see it as their conscience talking to them. The common ground should be - it does not matter what one thinks where it comes from - Relevant to oneself if it works it works.
Of course we are not talking of the thoughts of broken or "demented" ones. The exceptions cannot be regarded as the rule.

There is an objective reality, that does not change in the presence of the most devout 'belief' or 'faith' of the person. To not recognize there is an objective reality that stays the same in spite of belief has no better ground to stand on than those who get their spiritual views from "What the BLEEP Do We Know?" and "The Secret".

Is it not so that our lives are governed by not only the material in our world but to a far greater extent by the subjective, that is how we perceive things. A tree is a tree but it symbolizes different things to different people. To a Hindu it could be an aspect of God so to them God exists in all objects. Therefore they would say if you can see it you can see God.
All realities overlap with the basic of the material world but one cannot live on bread alone. They need beauty, love, acceptance and many other things that are considered to be subjective. So what the BLEEP does one know of the thoughts of others when our own thoughts are anchored in a different "Reality

____________

"Regardless of how hard we try to determine the constituents of the objective reality, the objective reality nevertheless rests on assumptions. Indeed, as noted above, it's very existence is assumed. Another assumption is that the objective reality has existed in the past and will continue to exist in the future. This assumption underlies the concept of time in the objective reality.

The objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless its very existence is assumed."

Source: http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/joan/atheism/reality.php
____________

[ytrewq]

This is quite correct. But I must add that how one sees things is heavily based on the milieu or culture they live in. In this case culture refers to the sub-culture and its thoughts and ways. One person may see that nudge as coming from their subconscious, others will see it as from God, others may see it as the guiding hand of the "Holy spirit", others will see it as their conscience talking to them. The common ground should be - it does not matter what one thinks where it comes from - Relevant to oneself if it works it works.

I have to strongly disagree that 'it does not matter' where our thoughts come from. It matters very much indeed.

Firstly, it matter immensely from an intellectual point of view, from the point of view of understanding how everything works, whether or not our thoughts originate purely from within our own body, or are influenced by some unknown form of communication, from an unknown entity in an unknown location. You can't seriously tell me that this question is of no interest to you, surely. It would be of immense interest to anyone with even the slightest scientific curiosity as to whether our thoughts originate purely from within our own body don't you think? Scientists are not studying this though, because no scientist seriously believes that any such form of mysterious communication from a God exists.

It matters more importantly for another reason though. If we 'own' our thoughts as I do, then we are responsible for our actions. However, if we really believe that a greater power is telling us what to do, then our own morality and law abidement become second priority, and we feel that it is OK, even our duty, to do what that voice from God is telling us to do. My friend, this is not academic, this is real, and it is happening around the world with horrendous consequences. It could be the president of the USA believing that God told him to invade Iraq, or it could be a suicide bomber believing that God wished him to murder others, and I could go on and on. It matters alright where you believe you thoughts come from.

This last sentence edited in for completeness. Whether or not our thoughts in fact originate completely from within our body, or are in fact mysteriously influenced from afar, is a scientific question that has nothing whatsoever to do with our culture or upbringing, though for the religiously inclined this will influence what some may feel.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 289 by Hamsaka]

That 'nudge in the mind' doesn't support evidence that the 'nudge' is God's guidance, as opposed to some other gods' or one's own conditioned sense of morality.

Is there any evidence for the nonbeliever that this 'guide dog' (who's presence I am not disputing) is God? Sure there is. But what is the quality of that evidence? What is its nature? How is this evidence collected and interpreted, and by what methodology is it determined to be that of God? This is where Theists and non-Theists can't seem to agree on common ground. And it's behind the non-Theist assertion that there is an objective 'common ground' whether a person acknowledges it or not.

This is quite correct. But I must add that how one sees things is heavily based on the milieu or culture they live in. In this case culture refers to the sub-culture and its thoughts and ways. One person may see that nudge as coming from their subconscious, others will see it as from God, others may see it as the guiding hand of the "Holy spirit", others will see it as their conscience talking to them. The common ground should be - it does not matter what one thinks where it comes from - Relevant to oneself if it works it works.
Of course we are not talking of the thoughts of broken or "demented" ones. The exceptions cannot be regarded as the rule.

How one sees things is definitely influenced by the cultural milieu. I don't see this as a fixed kind of influence, one that once impressed can't be removed, especially when it comes to religious belief. And there are several other kinds of conditioning that can change, both neutral and 'unwanted' kinds of conditioning.

For instance, in Buddhism (disabused of it's cultural add-ons) is a philosophy of examining and releasing one's conditioning. Persons raised in an abusive home must examine, release and change the negative conditioning. So how and where one grows up explains the kind of conditioning, but doesn't explain why the conditioning remains paramount. It's not a reason, especially nowadays where a person has access to information from everywhere.

I think at some point, each person has a comeuppance where they question and examine what they've taken for granted. Some people naturally question more than others, there's no right or wrong in that.

There is an objective reality, that does not change in the presence of the most devout 'belief' or 'faith' of the person. To not recognize there is an objective reality that stays the same in spite of belief has no better ground to stand on than those who get their spiritual views from "What the BLEEP Do We Know?" and "The Secret".

Is it not so that our lives are governed by not only the material in our world but to a far greater extent by the subjective, that is how we perceive things. A tree is a tree but it symbolizes different things to different people. To a Hindu it could be an aspect of God so to them God exists in all objects. Therefore they would say if you can see it you can see God.
All realities overlap with the basic of the material world but one cannot live on bread alone. They need beauty, love, acceptance and many other things that are considered to be subjective. So what the BLEEP does one know of the thoughts of others when our own thoughts are anchored in a different "Reality

____________

"Regardless of how hard we try to determine the constituents of the objective reality, the objective reality nevertheless rests on assumptions. Indeed, as noted above, it's very existence is assumed. Another assumption is that the objective reality has existed in the past and will continue to exist in the future. This assumption underlies the concept of time in the objective reality.

The objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless its very existence is assumed."

Source: http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/joan/atheism/reality.php
____________

I agree one's life could be governed primarily by subjective experiences. There will be both objectively derived information and subjectively derived, in cahoots with one another or in contradiction. What then?

I hold that there is an objective reality that exists apart from personal perception. A person is capable of refining a subjective perception to more accurately relate with the objective, but not the other way around. Therefore, the personal perceptions are conditionally dependent upon objective reality.

If subjective perceptions are given emphasis over objective reality, that is called delusion, fantasy, or most neutrally, 'just my opinion, I don't care what y'all say'.

So personal perceptions are most logically used if they are in service to objective reality. Not the other way around. Trying to subject outer reality to one's subjective whims involves mental gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty (not necessarily deliberate lying, more like avoidance).

I'd say things like beauty, love and acceptance are not subjectively derived. Beauty is a shared experience, it can be identified and even 'measured'. Affection and love, too. There are subjectively derived experiences as well, as you rightly say that these fields overlap. But it's likely what I mean by love, beauty and acceptance are what you mean as well. The differences between us will be the 'subjective', personal experiences. For instance, I love geese and find them beautiful, lovable and mine endure quite a bit of my affection. Most persons may find geese beautiful, but have more relevant experiences of being aggressively chased, beaten with wings and bitten on the *** by an angry goose. So have I, just today in fact (it is their breeding season) but I just adore them anyway. If I end up in an ER I'd have a time explaining the multiple perfectly round bruises all over my backside, legs and arms.

When it comes to very important things (my love of geese not being one of them), like life and death, public policy, laws and human rights, relying upon objective reality is the only way we can negotiate fairly with one another, because our subjective perceptions can vary so widely. If everyone let loose and flew their subjective freak flags it would be anarchy and darkness. So I'm saying we do NOT actually live as though our subjective experiences were stronger or more important. Well, most of us

Since we do not actually live as if our personal experiences were most important (unless we want to be imprisoned or hospitalized or dead), it follows we are deliberate in examining our subjective experiences with reason, our inbuilt tool with which to negotiate with the objective reality. And temper the subjective.

That's why I emphasized that love, belonging, affection and beauty or not solely subjective experiences -- we don't need to temper these things (well, within reason ha ha) in order to fully appreciate and negotiate with objective reality. It's about 'right relationship', so to speak, between objective reality and our personal perceptions.

[KenRU]

[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?

So, if I believed that gravity was an illusion, it would suddenly have no power over me, or be able to exert its influence?

If I suddenly believed my wife didnt exist, she couldnt communicate with me?

Really? Is god less powerful than my wife or gravity?

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?

Youre going to have to explain how this statement illustrates that my belief system can change how the physical world works.

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?

And yet, this guide dog can be blamed for all kinds of atrocities and bigoted behavior that happens today.

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.

Or it could be schizophrenia.

Sorry, Theunis, but the only voice (if you could call it that) in my head is my own conscience, and it is telling me that religion is an insidious, man-made creation that is capable of getting people to deny the physical world around them, and to put walls up between people that become nearly impossible to break down.

And I unfortunately have the 5 oclock news each evening that shows my fears to be true.

-all the best

[OnceConvinced]

It's been 8 years since I signed up as a member here. Zzyzx is right. I was a committed Christian up until around the time I signed up here. So far all that has happened is I have become even more convinced that God is not real. In fact I started out here considering myself Deist then moved to Agnostic and now identify myself as an Atheist. God sure has done a great job convincing me he exists.

That is unfortunate,

I wouldn't say that. I'm inclined to think it's actually a good thing.

but not surprising given the nature of most comments on this forum (see my past reply to Zzyzx). The comments given against Christianity seem sound at face value...

And also good when you look further into it. I'm capable of coming to my own conclusions. I can see when you really look into it that many of the arguments against Christianity are very sound. I have also found that those with God glasses on can't seem to see it. They will claim things like "you don't understand" or "you're taking it out context" or "it means something else" or "you need the holy spirit". There's always a heap of excuses but no good rational arguments. Just a lot of wishful thinking and imagination.

For 5 years I spent a lot of time crying out to God, lamenting about my loss of faith. It never did me any good. God did not reach out to me. There was just silence. It told me everything I needed to know and that's that this God I believed in didn't exist. It was a painful conclusion to come to, but I have now come to accept it.

[Theunis]

[Replying to post 290 by FarWanderer]
an aside - I see on the left hand margin a learner witch - What is the Wicca creed again?

When my existence hasn't been acknowledged, walking up to the person and saying "Hi." has worked pretty well for me in overcoming the problem. Does God have social anxiety issues?

My analogy was on the dot but - how can you walk up to "something you don't believe in" and say "hi"?. Or is this perhaps your need this recognition from a god and he must first speak or you will forever hold your unruly "peace". There are cultures where this is so for a one of lesser rank may not speak until spoken to. However where does this exist in a western culture?

The hearing deaf - this refers to the idiom - there's none so deaf as those who will not hear - which is said about someone who will not believe what they are told (rejects what is said, turns the deaf ear. Hears but does not listen)

the physical deaf who learn to use other senses -

I see I left a word out viz "their" other senses.
Well this is a scientific proven fact that deaf people's other normal senses become enhanced. You could try one of the links on this page -. https://www.google.com/search?q=hearing ... ce+hearing

Me: If you ignore your neighbour and , does he ever speak to you again even though he has the means to do so?
You: A bad analogy. Ignore is the wrong word for something you don't believe in.

Ignore: This is how ignore is defined and how I use it -
"Ignore
verb
refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.
Source - Google search - "ignore definition""
Place in Coventry - To be ostracised.
This is thus a very good analogy for Christians do not ignore nor ostracise their God.

Me:>>

" 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:>>

More analogy, this time expressing how you view religion. Thanks for sharing. In my opinion, a more apt analogy for revelation-based religion is that it's a giant club with "I'm better than you" written across it in bold lettering.

There is nothing here about my view of religion thus there are no religious views that could be remotely be intimated as me sharing them with you.
It is saying you must accept your own responsibility and not blame the dog in the story.
Your opinion of the big stick has three fingers pointing back at you. Just read some posts on this forum where it is claimed atheists are rational and theists are not. Atheist are clear minded and theists suffer from delusions and superstitions. etc. etc. etc.

And here is a swipe with the afformentioned club. Hypocrisy, coming from one who complains about being called delusional.

Aw gee thats a nice bit of misunderstanding and ad hominem isn't it, but I takes it from where it comes for you just had to get your swipe in even if it is off topic and a twist of what I said and thus to me meaningless. Hypocrisy
In any case quote to me where I complained about being called delusional ! And who was it who said I was delusional!

Do you not see the arrogance of what you have said? "if God wants me to hear and acknowledge him". To a Christian this would say you are placing yourself above God who to them is the King; The ruler of all. Ten to one they would probably say - He does not seek your acknowledgement but maybe it is the other way round, thus you cry and deny.

The alarm clock - how many people do not hear it and come late for work because they overslept? Time and again I heard this excuse from colleagues and my staff. Why it even happened to me once or twice. If you do not hear the clanging of the alarm clock how then will you hear that still small voice inside you?

You have answered your own question and I have answered it as well and for better clarification I added that which is found in everyday life. The answer to what you said and the question raised in this thread is contained in what I have said in the foregoing paragraphs which unfortunately you do not wish to hear.