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?

[Theunis]

[Replying to post 292 by Tired of the Nonsense]

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?

The point is you follow whatever path you please but there is a voice of conscience or something from the path you follow such as your previous experience etc so whatever "voice" you hear is the one speaking to you from inside you. So what does it matter how you classify that voice or inner feeling? Your conscience, your subconscious, your God - take your pick it is applicable to all walks of life not merely religious beliefs. You believe as you do and Christians and others believe as they do. Who is right who is wrong? Hubris, arrogance and the attitude of I know better is the way of fanatics and the downfall of humanity. These fanatics appear in all walks of life.

On the other hand religion is not make belief but a way of life and even if only the teachings of "do unto others" were to be followed then what do the lessons in their books teach its followers - not to be a fanatic, and how to live a good life. If some madman warps and twists the teachings then the madman is guilty and not the teachings.

A path only dictates to its followers what they should follow, if you walk a different path then that is the path of your choice. The question arises why must one try to isolate one specific group and from their own fanaticism try to trample that group?
How many times have those tramplers trampled themselves and broke their own legs and backs?

[Theunis]

[Replying to post 296 by KenRU]

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

Ah but it is an illusion applicable to yourself. Try jumping off the Eiffel Tower to prove your belief that it is an illusion but first use a parachute for on the way down you may start screaming.

If I suddenly believed my wife didnt exist, she couldnt communicate with me?
Really? Is god less powerful than my wife or gravity?

It is said he made all things thus he must have made your wife and gravity so automatically he is the more powerful. What I say is in the same vein as your questions. Maybe they are just an illusion to you.
If you never met her in the first place or you did meet her, divorced her and placed her in Coventry what then?

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

The physical world and the spiritual world, of which was spoken, are not the same so no explanation concerning the physical world will be forthcoming.

Me: >>".... who is to blame for your broken body/mind? The dog or you?"<<
You:..>>"And yet, this guide dog can be blamed for all kinds of atrocities and bigoted behavior that happens today."<<

Now this is oh so true for people from all walks of life do not accept their own culpability or responsibilities. For far too many, scapegoats appear to have become a necessity of life.

Me: "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."
You : "Or it could be schizophrenia."
Or it could be not seeing the analogy as as applicable to life in general.

"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."

A nudge is not a voice but thank you for confirming what I said regarding the "voice" you may be hearing - that is your conscience. But unfortunately what you say could be your conscience and what you say have no bearing on each other. This is borne out by your statement which is irrelevant to ones conscience and the questions raised by the OP.
Atheism has the same capability and many times cuts the anchors of people and sets them adrift. It is as insidious as anything else man can think up. If you keep trying to batter religions then that is your problem.

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

I am not in your part of the world and this is a vague statement thus qualification of your statement would be required but if you wish to discuss it then please start another thread.

Shalom

[ytrewq]

Re his belief that God can 'talk' to us :-

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?

Hi there Theunis,

I realize you very deeply believe that God can talk to you, and offer the following alternative viewpoint in best faith.

Your arguments leave me unconvinced. We agree that the 'Voice of God' inside of us is small, and can easily be missed altogether if we are not atuned to it. Well, I still maintain that all God needs to do 'turn up the volume' and then I (and others) will be able to hear it too, and I have listened. God is infinitely powerful, so of course he can turn up the volume, yet many of us never hear him. Go figure. It really is that simple. Of course a God could easily talk to anyone if he tried, and you are tying youself in logistical knots trying to convince us otherwise.

But let us be very charitable, and concede that maybe God is not as powerful or smart as we thought, and either can't turn up the volume, or does not realize he needs to. There is actually a lot of evidence for this, as many people can't hear him, and those that can generally report the voice is weak and unreliable, even if in no doubt that the voice is there sometimes, at least. Tony Blair, ex Prime Minister of the UK and deeply religious, publically explained how he sought God's guidance on whether to invade Iraq, but could not get a clear answer. Several Popes have said the same thing, not about the Iraq invasion, but that they have regularly doubted God's existence, and been tided over by their strength of faith between the times God has re-assured them. Ok, so the voice is weak and unreliable, even at the best of times.

Now I would like you to consider a close analogy, one I think you will find intersting and perhaps even amusing as it concerns the proven fallibilty of scientists.

The date is 1903, an exciting time in science and Physics, with major new discoveries occuring seemingly every few months. Many new forms of radiation have recently been discovered, such as X-rays, radioactivity, cathode rays and vacuum ultraviolet radiation, and there is high expectation that many more 'rays' will be discovered. Enter respected French scientist Prosper-Ren Blondlot, who excitedly reported the discovery of N-rays, a new form of radiation emmitted by most substances. The experimental details are not important, except to note that the detection apparatus produced a dim light on a screen in a darkened room, and when the N-rays were present, the weak intensity on the screen varied. News of the discovery spread, and soon approximately 120 other scientists in 300 published articles detected N rays emanating from most substances, including the human body with the peculiar exceptions that they were not emitted by green wood and by some treated metals. The intensity of light on the screen was detected by eye, and was admittedly dim, but clearly discernable, as judged by the certainty expressed by Blondlot and many other scientists that had duplicated the result. Already you can see an analogy with the 'voice of God', weak, but unmistakable nonetheless.

However, there was a small problem. Although many respected scientists saw experimental evicence of the N-rays quite clearly, there were a small number that did not, and that instead confessed to seeing no change in intensity at all. Papers describing the existence of N-rays were sent to the most respected scientific journal of the time (named Nature, and it retains that status today), who refused to publish the results because there was not universal agreement that they could in fact be detected.

Eventually, a yound scientist named Robert Wood was invited to Blondlot's laboratory to settle the matter. Blondlot alternately enabled and disabled the N-rays, and his assistant confirmed the corresponding changes in intensity. 'You see Monsieur, the effect is very clear, is it not?' Woods responded that, try as he might, he could detect no change at all. I was not present, but one can imagine Blondlot politely suggesting that Woods was deliberately being non-receptive to seeing the small changes, and therefore did not see them. There are none so blind as those that do not wish to see.

Later that afternoon, in the darkened room, Wood surreptitiously removed an essential prism from the experimental apparatus, such that N-rays could not possibly be detected at the screen, and yet Blondlot and his assistant continued 'demonstrating' the N-rays, reporting clearly discernable intensity changes judged subjectively by the assistant's eyes. Finally Woods secretly replaced the prism, and instead replaced a large metal file 'known' to produce N-rays, with a piece of wood that was 'known' not to, and again Blondlot continued to 'reliably' observe the N-rays by way of perceived intensity changes on the screen.

Woods published his findings in Nature, and other researchers then rapidly found that they too had deceived themselves, and N-rays were soon no more than an accepted myth.

The analogy with 'hearing' weak voices from God is complete. When the detected phenomenom is weak, and detected subjectively, and when the claimant believes the result, then it is a fact of human nature that the claimant can be very certain that what they 'hear' or 'see' is real, when in fact it is not.

I have worked in experimental physics all my life, and am more attuned to such limitations of human perception than most. I was also an amateur magician at one time, and deliberately experimented with how easy it is to deceive people, though I always 'let on' after the event. I have closely studied human nature for a long, long time, because it fascinates me, which is actually the primary reason I am on this forum.

Theunis, please forgive my apparently dogmatic style at time. Dogmatic I may be, but generally have at least some reason for my beliefs or skepticism, as here. I don't ask you to agree with me, but ask you to at least consider that maybe, just conceivably, those that believe God talks to them may be mistaken.

Googling 'N-rays' will provide more information on this fascinating true story.

[Theunis]

Reply Post 294 by 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.

The point is it matters to the person and not to anyone else who is not of the same bent.
I clearly stated - One person may see the nudge as coming from....etc. This should also have been seen when I said - Relevant to oneself...etc

So where would you say your thoughts come from? Especially those that are not voiced and appear as if you may be talking to yourself?

Go ask some soft scientist, who do in fact study such things, what their researches have revealed.

[Theunis]

[Replying to post 301 by ytrewq]

Please read what I say and not what you think I say.

What you say I believe is nowhere to be found in what I said
.
Try not to be condescending and magnanimous it is most unbecoming.

Your long post based on an assumption is thus meaningless. If you have been in the field of physics then you should apply its tenets in finer detail to the written/spoken word.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 301 by ytrewq]

Please, please, please read what I say and not what you think I say.

What you say I believe is nowhere to be found in what I said.
Try not to be condescending and magnanimous it is mosty unbecoming.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 301 by ytrewq]

Please, please, please read what I say and not what you think I say.

What you say I believe is nowhere to be found in what I said.
Try not to be condescending and magnanimous it is most unbecoming.
Your long post based on an assumption is thus meaningless. If you have been in the field of physics then you should apply its tenets in finer detail to the written/spoken word.

I'll let others judge the overall quality and politeness of my posting #301.

I'll also let others judge what you have said in previous postings.

You have in fact had several arguments with several people, where you have clearly expressed the view that God talks to people, and the reason that some of us don't hear it is because we are not receptive.

If we have all misunderstood your position regarding whether God talks to people, then it is up to you to now make your position clear.

If you in fact agree with my posting #301 all along, then just say so. If you don't, then explain why.

Stop carrying on like a pork chop.

If you have finally finished editing your post while I was replying, then I'll also let others judge the quality of your reply quoted above.

[Theunis]

[Replying to post 304 by ytrewq]

Just read what you quoted in your post 302. Nothing can be clearer.

[FarWanderer]

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

That usergroup I created has nothing to do with Wicca. It's an homage to a story about magic and logic called When the Seagulls Cry. The focal character has the title "The Golden Witch", and each of the story's 8 books is titled "_____ of the Golden Witch". I'm just borrowing that pattern.

As for Wicca, as far as I know it, I approve of it. Religion is generally good; authoritarian religion is bad.

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"?

I'm talking about God making an effort to talk to humans.

Or is this perhaps your need this recognition from a god and he must first speak or you will forever hold your unruly "peace".

I was responding specifically to you saying:

"if something does not exist for you how can you expect it to communicate with you?"

The answer is- in a nutshell- it can the same way everyone and everything else does.

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.

We are not talking about Christians. Whether Christians ignore God is beside the point. Do non-Christians ignore God?

Were you "ignoring" your 5th grade teacher when you hadn't met him/her yet? Of course not; that's not what the word "ignore" means.

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.

You began a sentence with "Religion is..." How can you claim to not be expressing how you view religion?

"How you view religion" is not to be confused with "your religious beliefs".

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.

Have I made such claims? Sometimes I disagree with what atheists say too, you know, even if I'm not as vocal about it.

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

The theist saying that I have my head in the sand about the existence of God ("refusing" to listen to him) is effectively the same as me saying the theist has their head in the sand about the non-existence of God (calling them "delusional").

If you want to have a conversation with someone on the other side, such accusations are a complete non-starter both ways, but you only seem to fully acknowledge the problem for one side.

I retract my accusation of hypocrisy on this point- it was not the right word given that you have not declared theism as your position.

However, it still remains in my eyes a double standard.

In any case quote to me where I complained about being called delusional ! And who was it who said I was delusional!

I was referring to this:

I think that atheist were the first to say God does not exist and then shifted the burden of proof onto those who say he does. Although it is my opinion you cannot prove it to be wrong and by merely saying prove it, the implication is you don't believe me and so saying cast aspersions on my integrity but that is not enough so you add I am suffering from a delusion, superstition etc, thus the immediate burden of proof, in a most concrete and material form mind you, (big smile) is yours and until you can prove what you say about me there is no need for me to prove anything.

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.

I'm just saying it's God's choice and not mine. My hands are tied on the matter, as you yourself said "how can you walk up to "something you don't believe in" and say "hi"".

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.

Which I think is quite arrogant. As if they know me better than I know myself.

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 it backwards. My point was that God could do better than an alarm clock, but he evidently elects not to.

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.

And here you play the "your head is in the sand" card yourself.

Which is just silly given that about half of your response wasn't even relevant to the points they were meant to address.

[Theunis]

[Replying to FarWanderer]
If you say I am hitting you with a stick of "your head in the sand" when I referred to the hearing deaf, then all I can say is if the shoe fits then wear it. But you missed the points I made. My spiel was 100% on the mark even if you do not accept it to be so..

Me: -

I think that atheist were the first to say God does not exist and then shifted the burden of proof onto those who say he does. Although it is my opinion you cannot prove it to be wrong and by merely saying prove it, the implication is you don't believe me and so saying cast aspersions on my integrity but that is not enough so you add I am suffering from a delusion, superstition etc, thus the immediate burden of proof, in a most concrete and material form mind you, (big smile) is yours and until you can prove what you say about me there is no need for me to prove anything.

Now who was complaining? It was merely stressing a point regarding proving something. Didn't you notice (big smile) ?

Everyone seems to be missing the crux of the matter which is why doesn't God do this or that when those who are moaning about it are the ones who says he does not exist.

To me I see this thread as just another case of confirming God does not exist because if he did then he would let everyone know he does and even buy them a Lamborghini or set them up in a castle. Why he may even put them back into paradise. Oh well he does not do it for his faithful followers so why worry about the rest who use some intricate arguments to boost their belief that he can be equated to unicorns, leprechauns or fairies.
Remember the Christian bible does not say he will come to you it says - come to me and I will give you peace and rest.

Using logic and analogies to represent life as it is, is useless for I perceive the fatal "I have made up my mind" wall. So I say let the atheists whistle as they work in their castles and let the religionists sing and hum in their castle while life and the world passes them by,
If their fanatics wish to war against each other only the rubble and dust of what was once theirs will remain.

Atheists say God does not exist so why do they cry he does not recognize them? This was the theme of my argument. Of course the story remains that it is merely another one of their arguments to attempt to prove he does not exist.
It is exactly like the Christians attributing human things to the unexplained and imponderable and wanting to see "THE MAN".