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?

[Bust Nak]

"I didn't believe in God (I was an atheist) and I persecuted Christians (See! I was an atheists!).
This is how it comes across to me. I admit I may be in error and thus ask what your opinion is on what you think he meant when he said that quote? I assume you read it as not connecting clauses or sentences or to coordinate words in the same clause. (?)

My interpretation is "I was an atheist and I was an anti-theist." Having said that I agree with the meat of your post, that atheists are not required to be an anti-theist, and the definition of atheism does not imply anti-theism. What I object to is the statement "you describe someone that is full of hate, NOT an atheist" as if a person full of hate cannot be an atheist, he was describing a hateful atheist.

[Clownboat]

"I didn't believe in God (I was an atheist) and I persecuted Christians (See! I was an atheists!).
This is how it comes across to me. I admit I may be in error and thus ask what your opinion is on what you think he meant when he said that quote? I assume you read it as not connecting clauses or sentences or to coordinate words in the same clause. (?)

My interpretation is "I was an atheist and I was an anti-theist." Having said that I agree with the meat of your post, that atheists are not required to be an anti-theist, and the definition of atheism does not imply anti-theism. What I object to is the statement "you describe someone that is full of hate, NOT an atheist" as if a person full of hate cannot be an atheist, he was describing a hateful atheist.

I'm glad I included this in my original post:
"Saying you hate Christians for example does not mean you are an atheist any more than it means your skin is blue (or that you are not an atheist)."
(Bold added to convey my intended meaning).

To clarify, I Clownboat know and understand that people that are hateful can be both atheists, Christian and anything in between.

[Mesopatamia]

[Replying to post 1 by Hatuey]

He does convince many Atheists. It's just that they are no longer atheists. I grew up as an agnostic with both an atheist father and an agnostic mother. I used to be very uncomfortable when Christians would tell me about their faith and I never wanted to be one of them. What made me change my mind was my wanting to know the truth for myself and Him showing up and proving himself to me in ways that were enough to convince me. I ignored the negative examples i saw from Christians and just focused on my relationship with Him. Much of the truth based on the bible that i have found is contradictory to a lot of the behaviors that claim to represent. I had to separate what i knew about church from what I knew about God.

If you feel that nobody can convince or prove to you that He exists, I agree 100 percent with you. He has proven to me over and over and over again over time, but in ways that would not convince you but did definitely convince me. When coincidence becomes patterns to the point of predictable outcomes over and over, plus a bunch of other experiences, it was enough for me. However, each of us must search the truth ultimately with Him and Him alone. Some atheists never do this. I personally wanted to know the truth and when i was alone and nobody was around, I prayed to the invisible most likely doesn't exist genie (as I viewed it back then) and over the course of several months, some very cool experiences started to happen. However, I can look back all through my childhood and now see how he was always there. So, unfortunately, proof is very personal and individual and is ultimately there for each person if they can muster enough just enough faith to pray to an "invisible bunny that doesn't exist" and ask Him "are you real and if so, who are you?"

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by Hatuey]

He does convince many Atheists. It's just that they are no longer atheists. I grew up as an agnostic with both an atheist father and an agnostic mother. I used to be very uncomfortable when Christians would tell me about their faith and I never wanted to be one of them. What made me change my mind was my wanting to know the truth for myself and Him showing up and proving himself to me in ways that were enough to convince me. I ignored the negative examples i saw from Christians and just focused on my relationship with Him. Much of the truth based on the bible that i have found is contradictory to a lot of the behaviors that claim to represent. I had to separate what i knew about church from what I knew about God.

If you feel that nobody can convince or prove to you that He exists, I agree 100 percent with you. He has proven to me over and over and over again over time, but in ways that would not convince you but did definitely convince me. When coincidence becomes patterns to the point of predictable outcomes over and over, plus a bunch of other experiences, it was enough for me. However, each of us must search the truth ultimately with Him and Him alone. Some atheists never do this. I personally wanted to know the truth and when i was alone and nobody was around, I prayed to the invisible most likely doesn't exist genie (as I viewed it back then) and over the course of several months, some very cool experiences started to happen. However, I can look back all through my childhood and now see how he was always there. So, unfortunately, proof is very personal and individual and is ultimately there for each person if they can muster enough just enough faith to pray to an "invisible bunny that doesn't exist" and ask Him "are you real and if so, who are you?"

Thanks Meso.... That was very thoughtful and well reasoned; however, I'm sure you can understand that many have journeyed the opposite path and well understand how easy it is to believe in something if the desire is present and strong, and that it is equally easy to revisit one's memory to find 'evidence' for support. In fact many former Christians can probably attest to experiences very much like the one you describe, yet eventually their studies and other experiences lead them to disbelief. The human mind is extraordinary. Its capacity for genius is equalled by its capacity for self deception. My own thought along this line is that our unconscious mind in particular is so profound and powerful it is easily mistaken for God.

[Mesopatamia]

Thanks, I appreciate that Danmark. This is so true. We all have different journeys and many people will even change their beliefs many times throughout their lifetime. Questioning things may be threatening to some, but if it is honest and sincere, leads to a deeper belief and foundation in the end. Everyone has their own experiences and journeys and they are all meaningful. I don't have to agree or adopt someone else's views in order to understand why they believe the way they do and in order to respect their views. I want to understand and appreciate someone else's experience and journeys the same way i want them to understand and appreciate my journey. We should all be encouraged to be able to hear others' experiences and beliefs and appreciate that everyone has great insight and wisdom to offer, whether or not we choose to adopt their beliefs. We all have something to learn from each other in the same way that we all have been led down different paths. Isn't that the point? Why have different experiences from one another if they are not to share and learn from? I don't believe that they were intended for us to judge one another and chip away at each other.

[ttruscott]

...

You describe someone that is full of hate, NOT an atheist.

Would you accept that I was an atheist who was also full of hate? It is you who is declaring that I defined all atheism as a concept of hate rather than just my own.

If your definition of atheists truly includes these things, please amend your definition for it being not only wrong, but slanderous and divisive. You were hateful, now own up to it. Don't blame it on some false definition of atheist, and then on top of it try to convince us that you were an atheist because of these hateful qualities you have or had.

For some people the very definition of a-theisim is to hate HIM if HE did exist which is shown by hating the concept and the content of the concept. We know a- means without but we also see the reality of a- in practice.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 380 by Danmark]
Well, sort of....
More (not) to the point, I would say D that the unconscious deception to which we fall is more our narrow-mindedness that our experience connotes the "one true faith", that we can interpret the message to us individually that all we ever were raised to believe was not just "truth" for us but for all mankind.

And so much so that when later the Believer experiences proper doubts about his "one true faith" delusion he extrapolates this to not just disbelief in his erroneous particularity, but that this delusion about the wrong generalization of his subjective experience invalidates the subjective experience that should still be regarded as proving God's working within him/her.
Yeah, my big problem in my early 20's was I found TOO MUCH to believe in, I found adequate reason to go along with any number of religions. It's hard pruning it down--I'm still working on that. Other than, of course, still worshipping at the Church of Dale that's my default when yet another denomination becomes incredible.

[Blastcat]

I'm sure you're not going to like my response, but here it is anyway.

Paul put it this way in Rom. 1:18-20:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world Gods invisible qualities"his eternal power and divine nature"have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Thank you, Overcomer.

I have a series of questions about your post.
I wonder if you would take a look at them.. and if you would care to answer some.


I have TWO questions about the "wrath of God".

Some Christians DON'T believe that Hell is torture or is real at all.. for example. It's just NOT being in the presence of god for an eternity some of them claim... with a lot of conviction, I might add.

So, my TWO questions about your god's wrath is:

1.What kind of threat does God pose to non believers?
2. How do you know it happens?

God has made himself evident in nature and in an individual's conscience, but people choose to repress that knowledge.

I don't see a god when I look at nature.. when I look at nature, I see NATURE. So, it's NOT evident to me.

You're SAYING that it's evident to me, when it's not. Sorry. I'm not lying. It's just not. I don't see a "god" hiding behind a tree or a cloud.

So, I have TWO questions about how "evident" god is in nature.

1. IN WHAT WAY IS NATURE evidence for god?

Oh, and since humans and human thinking and feelings are a PART of nature.. same goes for the conscience experience:


2. How is HUMAN conscience evidence of a GOD?

Therefore, there is no excuse for anybody to reject God.

I have TWO questions about not having an excuse to reject your god.....

I am NOT LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE.....
I don't need an EXCUSE to believe something is true....

What I need is a good REASON to believe something is true.

I can't REJECT something that I can't believe is true.

So, my 2 questions are :

1. Why do you think I DO have an "excuse" to reject god? I have a perfectly good reason to not believe in your god.

2. Why do you think I REJECT your god, when what I do is NOT BELIEVE in your god. ?

God has revealed himself and continues to reveal himself all the time.

Well, I suppose that's what many Christians say. I don't happen to SHARE this "revelation"... so.. what's up with that?

Some Christian in here told me that I simply was not CHOSEN to be revealed to.

So, my question is:

What do YOU say about my not getting a revelation?

The fact that not everybody acknowledges him doesn't mean that he doesn't exist.

OH, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT.

BUT the contrary is true as well....if you allow me:

The fact that not everybody acknowledges him doesn't mean that he DOES exist.

And worse than that.... because

EVEN IF it was a fact that everybody acknowledges him STILL would not mean that he DOES exist.

So just because a lot of people believe in something does not mean that what they happen to believe in is TRUE. They all might be believing in something false.

because......

BELIEF in something does NOT guarantee truth.

Nor does it mean he hasn't provided convincing evidence of himself.

True. It doesn't mean that.

The believer HAS somehow convinced himself. What's interesting to me is the METHOD he used to arrive at the conclusion.

Bad methods yield unreliable results.

That's one of the reasons I am not a theist. When I ask for the methods used by a believer.. the methods aren't what I would call ... very good at all.

Faith, for example. That's a horrible method to know if anything is true or not.

My question to YOU about methods is :

By what method did you arrive at the conclusion that your god exists?

It just means that some people will reject him in spite of the evidence for a variety of reasons.

In spite of WHAT evidence?

Atheists always ask theists for evidence and never get any. What we get AT BEST is terrible kinds of evidence that would convince NOBODY for any other subject than GOD.. God gets to have the WORST kinds of evidence possible AT BEST.

We usually get NOTHING in the form of evidence. Only ASSERTIONS... look at nature.. nature proves god.. and so on...

Bad reasons. Non existent evidence. A LOT OF CONVICTION ...though.. we do notice a WHOLE lot of conviction.

but anything else?

No.

So, my question..

What evidence?

Those who reject him for so-called rational reasons should be willing to listen to rational arguments about the existence of God and come to a saving faith in Christ.

I am EXTREMELY WILLING.. that's what I'm hanging around forums like this for.

Bring your best arguments, your best evidence, your best reasoning.
Let's take a good look at them.

But those who reject him for emotional reasons (anger at him for tragedy or hardship in their lives, for example) or for volitional reasons (they don't want him to exist because they don't want to give up their sins) may never allow him into their lives.

I'm SURE there are some atheists who think like that.
Tell you what.. when you find one.. mention my name .. I'd like to talk to him or her.
THAT'S really bad thinking.

To be ANGRY at something you believe does NOT exist?
WOW.. very bad thinking.

IF you are "angry" at this god.. of COURSE you have to believe it exists in some way or another. ATHEISTS don't believe this god exists in some way or another.

So, ATHEISTS wont be angry at your god.
Only BELIEVERS in your god can be angry at your god.

The people who fall in these two categories will often use the first category to hide behind rather than admit the real reasons for their rejection of God.

OH so, if I PRETEND to be rational, I'm really angry at your god.
And if I'm angry at god, then I'm angry at your god.

EITHER WAY.. It looks like I'm angry at your god.
Talk about having your god cake and eating it too!

Have I stopped beating my wife?
Yes?
No?

Either way, I AM BEATING MY WIFE.. very clever question.


Do I pretend to think critically about your god because I am so angry at it?

Yes?
No?
Either way
I am angry at your god.

Great question.. you get the desired answer NO MATTER YES OR NO.. it's a set up.
I can ONLY support your idea that I am angry at your god with that kind of reasoning.

It's bad reasoning. It's deceptive, too.

My question to you is:

How do you know that I am angry at your god?

J. Warner Wallace admits that he was in the third category, choosing to be an atheist because he didn't want to give up his sins.

WOW.. I should talk to J. Warner Wallace. He doesn't seem to be thinking clearly.

AS an atheist.. I don't believe in your god. ( well all gods.. but I'm trying to speak to your beliefs, so YOUR god... whatever that is )

So, SIN... is a part of your god beliefs.

NOT MINE.. I don't believe in your sin beliefs.

So, I DON'T WANNA SIN... I can't sin.. I don't believe in sin.

My question to you is:

WHAT sin do I want to.... KEEP doing?

People like Lee Strobel were in the first category and, when presented with the rational evidence, followed it to its rational end -- belief in God.

Lee Strobel's logic might be extremely flawed. Appeals to authority don't really convince me, in any case.

Just because someone thinks somehow, does not mean IT"S TRUE or LOGICAL or anything. So, I really don't CARE what Lee Strobel says..

Tell me what YOU believe in and why and how you arrived at it.. then, I'll care a lot.
because I'm not having an opportunity to challenge Lee right now.

The second category is the trickiest one. If emotion drives a person, it's hard to reason with him. He needs healing, but he rejects the one who can heal him, that is, Jesus Christ.

I agree.. it's very "tricky".

Why do you think I need healing?
Why do you imagine that Jesus Christ can heal me?

My question to you is :

IF someone doesn't agree that your god beliefs are true, how does it mean that person needs HEALING in any way? Do you see not believing in your god beliefs as some kind of SICKNESS?

What sickness is that... ?

Do you think I'm sick?

Please explain my "disease".

Well, there you go.

I have a lot of questions.
hope you have as many answers.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to sfisher]

Doesn't sound like he was to me. But we can both have our opinions.

It always amazes me what believers say when asked their prior reasoning on being an atheist. For example, if I ask you what reason you would have given as to why you were an atheist, I'll bet your reply will have more to do with one particular God or experience than a reasonable argument. Backsliding or not caring about the God of your culture even though it's who your pray to in a time of crisis isn't atheism. Believers don't seem to get that.

AHHhhhh...the space between what I thought I was experiencing and actual reality, sigh. Now that I understand reality to be actually different from what I thought I was experiencing, I must agree with you.

PRO: Atheists are converted
It is claimed to be a fallacy to say that all atheism is based on an a-priori antagonistic relationship with YHWH because some have no memory of such a relationship and feel no antipathy at all, but
it is ok to deny the the atheism of one who hates the idea HE stands for, an idea that he thinks is man made?

Atheists don't hate God, they just don't believe He exists. So does hating Him as a concept disprove one's atheism? I do understand the difficulties but I also think I see a double standard here, in that I can't prove my atheism as anything more than rebellion whereas it is not acceptable to interpret another's atheism as rebellion...huh?

[feeling muddled...]

CON: GOD does not convert atheists
IF GOD does not convert Atheism, true atheism of a total disbelief with no emotional content THEN all believers who converted from disbelief were not truly disbelieving atheists at all but closeted believers who did not even recognize their own disbelief as a rebellion to GOD.

Such ideas mesh seamlessly with the Christian interpretation of Rom 1:20 (which I won't quote less someone decides to think I am using the verse to prove the idea correct rather than using it to prove it is a Christian idea) Which claims we have all seen the power and divinity of The Lord GOD Almighty so we are without excuse for our disbelief and the rest of the chapter goes on to tell us that after the proof was given that sinners suppressed the truth in their memories (repressed the memory) because they loved their sin more than the truth, that is, they would not give up their sin for the truth.

IN the basic scheme of pre-conception Christian election we have some people putting their faith in YHWH as their GOD and being chosen / elected to heaven and some rejecting HIM, never putting their faith in HIM as their GOD and being left to hell....which, if true, would seem to be supported by the idea that all converts were already believers with faith in GOD but who were caught in rebellion and a blinding love for sin and all atheists, true atheists who have never put their faith in HIM, are never converted.

So, caught between my memories of my interpretation of what I was experiencing as a rather hateful young man, and what I now accept to be the truth about that reality, I must back track and accept that I was never a true atheist at all, merely and elect sinner and a true atheist who never put any faith in GOD before they saw the proof cannot be converted, for which I thank you.

Peace, Ted

[Clownboat]

...

You describe someone that is full of hate, NOT an atheist.

Would you accept that I was an atheist who was also full of hate?

Yes, perhaps that is how you should have described it?

It is you who is declaring that I defined all atheism as a concept of hate rather than just my own.

Let's examine this shall we:
You said: "I didn't believe in God and I persecuted Christians, trying to destroy their faith. Especially I hated the church."

My first line of response to you was: "It's not clear that you were actually an atheists."

I believe the readers in this thread can see that I did not accuse you of speaking/defining for all atheists.

If your definition of atheists truly includes these things, please amend your definition for it being not only wrong, but slanderous and divisive. You were hateful, now own up to it. Don't blame it on some false definition of atheist, and then on top of it try to convince us that you were an atheist because of these hateful qualities you have or had.

For some people the very definition of a-theisim is to hate HIM if HE did exist which is shown by hating the concept and the content of the concept. We know a- means without but we also see the reality of a- in practice.

Why do you find it worth mentioning that some people whom you cannot identify hold some belief definition about a-theism that basically describes a nonsensical idea? Do you know any such people? Are any of them here? If not, why do you bring this up? Perhaps you are such a person that thinks atheists are atheist because they hate a concept that they don't believe in?

What your describing makes me think of an adult hating Santa Claus even though they know he is not real. Perhaps it would make for a good defense if coming from a six year old: "You just stopped believing in Santa because you hate him!"

The six year old can go on with his day assuming that this is why you don't believe in Santa. Nothing is further from the truth of course.