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?

[PghPanther]

I've read the book. Extremely weak arguments long refuted and easily refuted by any person who deals honestly in rationality and logic and not already settled on the position claimed by the author.

While we're on the topic of books. Has anyone here read Lee Strobel's books/watched the movies for The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, The Case for a Creator (the movies of which I've watched) or any of his other works? He describes his journey from non-belief to belief, so you can't say he was already settled on the outcome.

Even better for the scientifically minded among us, has anyone watched the video Unlocking the Mystery of Life?

Very familiar with Strobel...........the Mr Rogers of apologetics.......

.....his methodology and process/procedures are just embarrassing to give any credence to.

His book Case for Christ starts with unbelieving and trying to prove Christ doesn't exist............that's a horrible position to start with..............

You should examine the first the historical Christ based on objective research and not hold a position for or against......then tackle the divine aspects at a later point.

Then as to act so skeptical about not believing in a Christ he only goes to "experts" who are believers..............and assumes they are objective and as a result are right and so he becomes a believer?

What a twit..................me thinks he came to this conclusion so he wouldn't have to owe up on alimony payments to a wife who recently became a believer and perhaps read him the riot act.....

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 453 by Zzyzx]

but unlike the king or politician in the case of the Biblical God for those who believe in such an entity their very scriptures say this personal God has the hairs on every persons head numbered...........and have this so called son of God, Jesus saying that God is even aware of every fallen sparrow then how much more important are you?

So much for God being to busy or not great enough to care of the common person...........but he's a no show in all of reality despite the claims in those "Holy Scriptures"

[PghPanther]

I'm interested in what you considered your best reason for atheism when you held that position, though.

Basically all the same things that non-believers on this forum bring up. God was all about fire and brimstone in the Old Testament, science has disproven creation with evolution, the big bang theory, dating materials in the earth to be millions and billions of years old. I and my atheist friends were more moral than so-called Christians anyway, so why did I need their religion? and so on...

That doesn't answer my question at all. (It is, approximately, the same answer I get from most people who claim to be former atheists turned believer when I ask them that question). And all of those considerations aren't reasonable arguments for unbelief; I'm not even sure any of them are actual arguments. I can't imagine a rational person using any of them except perhaps as a starting point in beginning to question faith--or a particular believer's perspective on his particular type of god.

What was the SINGLE argument for atheism you found most convincing? Why did you consider it the most powerful argument for atheism at that time?

Simple........no evidence in reality supernatural or otherwise.........the same lack of evidence or position in why I could claim the Trix Rabbit from the cereal created the universe and you wouldn't believe me......why?..............there is no evidence for it from your view point right?...........case closed
l

[KenRU]

I suppose the reason why a judgmental God would not bother to make himself known to people is for the same reason a politician, celebrity, or a king would not make himself known to someone specifically, he is far too busy to be concerned with someone so common

That seems counter-productive for an omniscient and supposedly benevolent diety. He reveals himself (by your logic) to those who already believe and do not need saving, but not to those who don't believe and do need saving (from his own wrath).

Or do you discount those Christians who claim to have felt or experienced god's hand in mortal affairs?

Either he reveals himself to those not needing proof (but not to those who have been led astray) or he doesn't have a hand in mortal affairs at all (and those experiences by Christians must be explained away by very mortal reasons).

[PghPanther]

...

I have to wonder how sin had anything at all to do with why I renounced my Christianity and became atheist, totally based on the evidence at hand, after 15yrs of dedication and study. It had Nothing at all to do with sin and everything to do with accepting the truth at hand, over my faith...

...

Scripture teaches Christians that it is sin that causes deviations in our thinking and decision making processes... especially those thoughts and decision that are contra GOD.

I can see that a Christian preacher might suggest that repentance for sin would prove better than years of dedication and study, <shrug>.

Each to our own I guess,

Peace, Ted

Oh, yeah, that's right, I remember, it's a sin to even doubt nonsense!

So, how many times does one have to repent from sin to satisfy god? Obviously if I became a Christian (born again) I would have repented of my sin at the time but that didn't really mean anything, since I wasn't much of a sinner anyway. I felt more guilty after my Christianity than I did before it, for partaking in such nonsense...

The whole concept of sin was pumped right through my Christianity, like a guilt trip! Now days, I have to pity those who lap up this guilt trip and pump it like it is real...

Even going to church became a concern to me after having 4 children because this repentance nonsense draws the worst kinds of human beings. It became obvious to me that Christianity was riddled with those people who where lost in (so called) sin most of all. The Drug addicts, prostitutes, Sexual deviants, prisoners/convicts and all the other looser in our society, all flocking to Christianity, hoping god will help them, through repentance and forgiveness. I realised this was not a place for children...

Thank goodness I got my children away from this sin nonsense. What a guilt trip. Might work on drug addicts and prostitutes but it doesn't mean a whole lot to me or my children, who are all doing fine without religion restricting their common sense...

Well stated.................beside the majority of individual steeped in their lack of discipline of poor decision making in life claim such miraculous conversion to their faith in Christ.......when in fact they've only taken their of obsessive compulsive behavior and traded it from one vice (irresponsible behavior) to another vice(irresponsible behavior in the delusion of a personal God).........and there is nothing usual or miraculous about that.......

[PghPanther]

Yes, it is hard to do the work and actually understand biology, evolution and such. Much easier to accept one of the many god claims and bam, you no longer have to worry about any of that.

Is that not lazy though? Should you not examine everything carefully and hold on to that which is good?

I did. After investigating everything outside of Christianity, I finally explored Christianity and found the answers nothing else could provide.

How can you be sure you have answers when you might not even know the questions?

Or worse...........just because you have the ability to ask a question such as "why am I here or what purpose does my life serve" does that mean there has to be an answer existential in the supernatural beyond your own existence?

Reality does not owe humans any answers to whatever we can ask just because we want an answer.............no matter how comforting the presumed answer might make us feel.....

[joejoeson]

I suppose the reason why a judgmental God would not bother to make himself known to people is for the same reason a politician, celebrity, or a king would not make himself known to someone specifically, he is far too busy to be concerned with someone so common

That seems counter-productive for an omniscient and supposedly benevolent diety. He reveals himself (by your logic) to those who already believe and do not need saving, but not to those who don't believe and do need saving (from his own wrath).

Or do you discount those Christians who claim to have felt or experienced god's hand in mortal affairs?

Either he reveals himself to those not needing proof (but not to those who have been led astray) or he doesn't have a hand in mortal affairs at all (and those experiences by Christians must be explained away by very mortal reasons).

I was being sarcastic. If you want to see God, then meditate. I've made this quite clear throughout my posts, I even started a thread on it.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=28134

[Cephus]

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?

Valid and defendable reasons? to who? other atheists. One question that I have, is how decent, sensible, reasonable people could be atheists?

The evidence bears it out. Atheists are vastly under-represented in the prison population, there are fewer there, by percentage, than in the general population, whereas Christians are over-represented, there are more people in prison reporting to be Christians in prison entry statistics than in the outside population. Atheists are better people, by these statistics, than Christians.

[Clownboat]

In your opinion, is it decent and sensible to worship a god that orders you to commit genocide against other humans?

Well, technically, it could be sensible if that was the only way that you and your children were going to live.

With enough imagination, I'm sure we could both come up with a scenario where this would be true, but I think you knew the type of genocide (the type ordered in the Bible) I was referring to.

Perhaps. But we might not see those in the same way, so I responded only to the specific question.

This is true, and it was a clever way to dodge the question that was posed to you. The readers will be forced to assume why it seems.

But I do not think that just because someone has attributed an order to God, means that God gave that order, and/or wanted that done.

On this we agree.
To clarify, did the god of the Bible order genocide, or is that part of the Bible mans invention in your opinion?

Depends. (though I am not sure genocide is accurate)

Genocide is the correct word. Why can you not tell me if the god you are a slave to ordered it or not? Also, do you think it was your god or man that told the soldiers that they could keep the virgin girls for themselves?

In protection of innocents being killed, perhaps. (like Sodom and Gomorrah) And not without giving people a way out; or a chance to change their ways/the harm they were committing against others.

Genocide = the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

I could see where you are coming from if you were talking about killing the required people in order to protect innocents. Genocide, like was is told about in the Bible involves killing innocents though. Except if they are virgins though. Killing a virgin would be a waste, right?

But much may be the work of the scribes (lying pen of the scribes), and/or attribution to God what man desired, and/or perhaps even exaggerated tales to ward off enemies - which could be wise if you were a small nation, in the midst of several more powerful nations.

Back full circle it seems. Did the god you are a slave to order the genocide told about in the Bible? 'Depends' is not an answer.

What about a god that would send people to infinite torture for finite sins?

Not in my opinion... though decent and sensible people could do so in fear of a god that could do this, and also out of fear of being sent to such a place.

To clarify, does your god concept send people to infinite hell for finite crimes? If not, I'm sure you also know the people I am referring to.

My God does not.

I do know people you are referring to... but your post was directed at me, so I responded accordingly.

Thank you for clarifying.

(not saying there is such a place... but that might be another topic, unless one wants to discuss it here)

Are you a slave to the god of the Bible, or another god?

I am a slave of Christ. His Father is my God. I know God as revealed and shown by Christ.

Christ does not reveal things. If he does, please explain how. From my experience, it is people reading the Bible and then claiming God revelation. How did Christ reveal any of this to you? Something personal that cannot be verified I would assume?

If I were looking only at the bible, that would mean that I would look at Christ to see God, over anything else that is written.

Where else is there to look?

Is it decent and sensible if you have done wrong to to allow an innocent person to be beaten, tortured and then killed for your wrongdoing? If I'm caught speeding, is it decent and sensible for me to ask the cops to beat up my neighbors child instead of issuing me a ticket for my wrongdoing?

If you are the one who has done wrong... and you throw someone else under the bus for your crime, then no.

We seem to agree.
So I ask, "what is it that you have done in your life that is so bad that would allow you to be OK with the idea of having an innocent man be tortured and nailed to a cross over it"? No need to incriminate yourself of course.

How does my being ok or not ok with something have anything to do with whether or not it was necessary? If something is necessary (and why it is necessary is another topic), then I am simply grateful that someone loved me enough to do what needed to be done.

I have a hard time swallowing that a god that can create the universe with spoken words cannot come up with a better way to save our pitiful souls beside by having an innocent man beaten and nailed to a pole over it? Personally, "I" have never done anything in my life that would make me be OK with an innocent man being tortured and killed. Thus I inquired about what it is that you have done that convinces you that such a thing is OK.

But if you are the innocent party, and you take the consequence for someone else's wrong, then depending upon the circumstances... that would be from love, and could also be decent and sensible, depending upon your goal.

This changes the point of view. Is it decent or sensible to be OK with an innocent person suffering for your crimes?

Who is the more noble person. The one that feels forgiven because they believe someone paid a price for them? Or the person that feels forgiven because they have been accountable for their behavior?

I am not interested in who is more noble, nor would I know how to judge a person as more or less noble than another. I mean no offense by this. It it just the truth.

No worries, I trust the readers will come to their own conclusion.

As for the question outside of that, one can be both accountable for their behavior and forgiven on the basis of what another has done for them. Because it is not a matter of "oh Christ died for your sins, and now you are not accountable for anything wrong that you do."

Never said it was. I was just curious about what has convinced you that you are so bad, evil, stained (whatever word that should be used) that would make you OK with the idea of an innocent person paying the price for you.

If I thought of the worst thing I have done in my life, I would not be OK with an innocent person being tortured and killed over it. I would kindly say, "no thank you".

Gratitude and love (even if just for what Christ did for you) should motivate you TO make amends if you have wronged another, if possible, even if that is just in acknowledgement and apology of your wrongdoing.

Sure it should, but that is irrelevant.
Consider the idea that Hitler repented and asked Christ into his life before he died.

If you were a god, which followers would you want? The ones OK with an innocent suffering and dying for them so they can feel good, or those that are good for no other reason than goodness sake?

Obviously the second... but I think the question is a false dichotomy.

I would call it a hypothetical, but the point remains (and admittedly proves nothing).


Peace to you Tammy.
Thanks for the polite reply.

[Zzyzx]

.

The evidence bears it out. Atheists are vastly under-represented in the prison population, there are fewer there, by percentage, than in the general population, whereas Christians are over-represented, there are more people in prison reporting to be Christians in prison entry statistics than in the outside population. Atheists are better people, by these statistics, than Christians.

Atheists (or Non-Christians) may be more law abiding -- or smart enough to not get caught so often -- neither of which speaks highly of self-identified Christians.

Another possibility is that Christians may be more willing to "cop a plea" thinking they will be "forgiven" as they have been taught in the religious sense (if they confess, repent and ask forgiveness).

Also, people may be inclined to falsely claim to be Christian in hopes of gaining advantages in real life (including prison for some and social approval for others) and in a hypothetical "afterlife" when they die.

It is interesting to note that forty percent (40%) of the US population claims in surveys to attend church regularly -- while actual attendance statistics indicate that only twenty percent (20%) actually do attend regularly. Does this seem to indicate that about half those who claim to attend regularly do not speak truthfully?