Q: do you, Christian, claim that God exists, rather than you believe that he exists?

[discipulus]

You condemn a person in your mind...at least until you prove a god exists that can do all his own condemning.

I condemn no one. If I am to condemn anyone, I must condemn myself. But as I stated, I condemn no one.

---

That is your opinion. I thank you for sharing it. I engage people here on a personal, case by case, individual level. I do not make blanket statements about all atheists nor do I lump all atheists together. I believe some are willing to hear me out on what I have to say and I believe some are unwilling.

I believe desire plays a very big part in whether someone accepts or rejects a truth claim. I do not believe that some here are as objective in their pursuit of knowledge as they claim to be. I believe we all have desires and they do influence our beliefs, myself included.

You don't believe that we are as objective in our pursuit of knowledge? Really? Come on, man. You can't be real. You are too smug for words.

Tell me, is there anything that would cause you to not believe in God?

Do not misquote me. I said that I do not believe that some here are as objective in their pursuit of knowledge as they claim to be.

---

That is your opinion. I thank you for sharing it. I engage people here on a personal, case by case, individual level. I do not make blanket statements about all atheists nor do I lump all atheists together. I believe some are willing to hear me out on what I have to say and I believe some are unwilling.

I believe desire plays a very big part in whether someone accepts or rejects a truth claim. I do not believe that some here are as objective in their pursuit of knowledge as they claim to be. I believe we all have desires and they do influence our beliefs, myself included.

You don't believe that we are as objective in our pursuit of knowledge? Really? Come on, man. You can't be real. You are too smug for words.

Tell me, is there anything that would cause you to not believe in God?

I can think of many things that would give me reason not to believe in God.

[discipulus]

What burden of responsibility and measure of condemnation then does the believer who fails to present adequate reasons for belief bear? Any? Is it really only on the person who rejects the claims, in spite of their willingness to listen impartially? So weak evidence can never be weak evidence? Irreversible guilt accrues for exercising honest skepticism? Nice system you have there.

Your questions merit a thoughtful, sincere, and charitable response. So I beseech you to bear with me as I attempt to furnish a worthy reply.

I am a skeptic. I know this may come as a shock to you, but I am. When someone tells me they speak for God, naturally, I am skeptical. I think a healthy dose of skepticism is appropriate, for there lies great danger in simply accepting anything and everything at face value without searching the matter out. God instructs me to "try and test and prove" a matter before accepting. He also instructs me to "hold on to that which is good." God has invited me to "come and reason with Him".

The scriptures make it very clear that we are to love God with all our MINDS as well as our hearts.

Secondly, what is "weak" or what is "adequate" is primarily a subjective matter. For one person argument (a) is a weak argument for God's existence. For another, (a) is a strong argument. For one person, line of evidence (e) is an adequate line of evidence. For another, the same line is an inadequate line of evidence. Both lines and both arguments are the same, but two different people come to two different conclusions. In this it is seen that it is something about the persons which causes them to judge the matter differently. That is not to say that there does not exist one objective truth on the matter. It simply means that what we deem adequate or strong is in large part subjective.

If I perceive God to be a bloodthirsty tyrannical fellow who is the worst possible person that could ever exist whose existence would mean the demise of my autonomy and "liberty" then I am naturally gonna hope this bloke does not really exist!!!! For who sits around hoping and wishing that their worst nightmare is gonna come true?

If on the other hand, I perceive God to be the most gracious, the most loving, the most kind person that could exist whose existence assures me that He will take care of me, then naturally I am gonna hope this God actually exists.

If our perception of God correlates with our personal desire then we will hope God exists. We will want Him to exist. If our perception of God does not correlate with our personal desire then we will not want Him to exist.

So before we even venture into what is evidence for God's existence, we must sit down with our own selves and ask ourselves honestly, what is it that we desire? For we have to admit that our desires play a part in this, among other factors.

Surely some may say: Ahhh! but desiring something does not make it actually exist! To this I would agree. Just because I may want there to be a God does not mean God exists. God's existence is an ontological issue and is in no way dependent upon my desire. But to sit back and say: "I am objective and my desires and my wishes and my hopes for my life in no way play a part in my judging what is evidence for God's existence" is simply naive and self deceiving. Huxley mentioned it so succinctly when he said: 'I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption'. Here Huxley is transparent as some are loathe to be.

Do I believe all atheists are like Huxley? Of course not! Do I believe all atheists secretly desire that God does not exist for evil reasons? Of course not! Do I think some are sincerely seekers of truth? Of course I do! Do I believe some try to appear to be sincere seekers of truth but actually hope that God does not exist, yes, I believe this.

Christ has instructed me that I should always be ready to give a defense for the hope that I have with all meekness and gentleness. This is as much as God requires of me. If I out of love for you give you that which God has instructed me to give you in the way of a defense and you reject it for whatever reason then my responsibility and duty has been discharged. I have done all that God has asked me. Notice the keyword "if". I do believe there are people who try and convince people that God exists and they do so not out of love or by the will of God but rather out of a desire to appear learned and superior. It is these that God shall judge because their intent was evil.

With regards to people listening impartially, this is not so easy to do. Why? Because once again, none of us has grown up in isolation. We often are partial to that which correlates with our desire, or our upbringing, or what our friends think or like. We all have preconceived ideas about reality based on numerous factors. We should try to be impartial when examining evidence of course but just because we should be does not mean we always are.

Some people have admitted that the real reasons they were reluctant to believe in God had nothing at all to do with lack of evidence, but rather, that they were simply afraid of what would become of their life if they acknowledged His existence. These people were afraid that they would have to "give up" some things that they were doing that they knew were contrary to God. They were afraid to give up what they thought was their autonomy and liberty. They believed that if they were to admit God's existence then if they were to be honest, they would have to see it through to the end. For some this was the hardest decision they had to make. For in a sense, they would be dying.

Do all atheists feel this way? I cannot say. I do not know anyone's heart but my own but I have tried to place myself in their shoes and for some I know it must be a scary prospect.

But if we are to seek truth, we must follow it, wherever it leads. The question is, do you really want it at all cost, even if the cost is your autonomy?

To all of you here I ask:

What is truth worth to you? We measure something's worth by how much we are willing to sacrifice to obtain that something. What are you willing to give up so that truth might be yours?

This is where the rubber meets the road. For up to this point, we have had to sacrifice nothing. You see, it is easy to talk about seeking truth just like it is easy to talk about denying yourself and dying daily. It is easy for Christians to sit around in their lavish seminaries and talk about love and talk about taking up their cross and following Christ. It is an altogether different thing to love your fellow man. It is an altogether different thing to take up one's cross and die daily. Death is painful. Love requires sacrifice. It is not easy. But I am persuaded that it is worth it because I SEE THE EFFECTS of this and I OBSERVE WITH MY OWN TWO EYES the cause and effect relationship of loving and dying to self ( I speak as a scientist now ). The EFFECTS that living a life of selfless love produces is the EVIDENCE that my beliefs are grounded and rooted in the truth. For God is love.

What are you willing to sacrifice my friend to have truth as your own? Is there anything you are afraid to lose that hinders your pursuit of truth?

Only you can answer this.

[max-greece]

Discipulus,

It would appear to me that you are making the archetypal theist error of compounding 2 aspects of God in one.

For an atheist there is the first issue - being persuaded God exists, followed by the second issue - being persuaded he is worthy of worship. These are not synonymous.

You are fairly sure that Huxley rejected God because he didn't like him. Unsafe conclusion.

I imagine Huxley to be rather like myself. I decided I didn't believe there was a God at about 11. It was only after that when I learned more about the God options and religions that I realized I was relieved he didn't exist.

Its quite possible that for many atheists that latter discovery masks the former - or converts it into a sort of "No God this horrific can actually exist, therefore he doesn't."

Of course there are a finite number of people out there who conclude that God does exist, but he is horrible - Maltheists.

Every variation and permutation is possible.

[SteelCurtain]

You don't believe that we are as objective in our pursuit of knowledge? Really? Come on, man. You can't be real. You are too smug for words.

Tell me, is there anything that would cause you to not believe in God?

Do not misquote me. I said that I do not believe that some here are as objective in their pursuit of knowledge as they claim to be.

I don't feel as though I have. You are presenting a red herring here. I choose to believe that you are smart enough to know that it doesn't matter whether you mean some of us or all of us. That clearly wasn't the point. The point is that instead of focusing on how objective some of us are, try looking at yourself. You have shown an amazing ability (case in point: your response to my post) to focus on insignificant minutiae in order to switch the focus off of the real issue being addressed, to belabor points that have already been addressed, and to profess over and over again that if we are unwilling to accept your evidence, that there is nothing wrong with your evidence, it is us that has the problem.

To me, that doesn't sound very objective.

---

I can think of many things that would give me reason not to believe in God.

Here again, I feel like it was obvious that some examples are necessary.

[Faith No More]

What are you willing to sacrifice my friend to have truth as your own?

The only thing being sacrificed to conclude that Jesus is real is intellectual integrity.

And your question is merely trying to shy away from the burden of proof by insinuating that anyone else somehow shares the responsibility of accepting the evidence that you have. It's a smokescreen to try to cover up that your evidence is shoddy and you don't want to speak for itself. You have to first give your argument a little psychological primer to sugarcoat its legitimacy.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Part of the problem I see in this thread is there is no attempt to divide the non-objective Truth beliefs people arrive at by faith, and objectively justified true beliefs derived empirically without faith.

They aren't interchangeable terms the religious want to believe they are.

Saying you have personal evidence for beliefs and are unwilling to disclose it doesn't qualify your personal evidence as scientific evidence, and the fact you believe it can disproven shows it definitely isn't.

[fr0d0]

Part of the problem I see in this thread is there is no attempt to divide the non-objective Truth beliefs people arrive at by faith, and objectively justified true beliefs derived empirically without faith.

They aren't interchangeable terms the religious want to believe they are.

Saying you have personal evidence for beliefs and are unwilling to disclose it doesn't qualify your personal evidence as scientific evidence, and the fact you believe it can disproven shows it definitely isn't.

Really?!

I see quite the opposite. The Christians are repeatedly stating the difference between objective and subjective truth beliefs. The nonsense that scientific objective beliefs have to be applied to subjective religious beliefs.

The religious are saying they're not interchangeable, the non religious are saying they are.

The personal evidence is freely available to all. Have you not heard of the bible?! It is actually objectively established that religious truths cannot be proven scientifically. What I can't understand is why anyone would want to keep pummeling their head into a post over that.

I'm not going to force you not to do that, but I feel I must stand up for reason and point out your folly.

[discipulus]

Discipulus,

It would appear to me that you are making the archetypal theist error of compounding 2 aspects of God in one.

For an atheist there is the first issue - being persuaded God exists, followed by the second issue - being persuaded he is worthy of worship. These are not synonymous.

If Christ was who He said He was, would you worship Him? If not, why?

You are fairly sure that Huxley rejected God because he didn't like him. Unsafe conclusion.

I have tried to find the place where I said that. Can you point me to it?

I imagine Huxley to be rather like myself. I decided I didn't believe there was a God at about 11. It was only after that when I learned more about the God options and religions that I realized I was relieved he didn't exist.

Huxley said: 'I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption.'

Are you saying that is how you feel as well?

[Whateverist]

[quote='Rampant.A.I.' pid='610021' dateline='1393349305']
Part of the problem I see in this thread is there is no attempt to divide the non-objective Truth beliefs people arrive at by faith, and objectively justified true beliefs derived empirically without faith.

Really?!

I see quite the opposite. The Christians are repeatedly stating the difference between objective and subjective truth beliefs. The nonsense that scientific objective beliefs have to be applied to subjective religious beliefs.

The religious are saying they're not interchangeable, the non religious are saying they are.

The personal evidence is freely available to all. Have you not heard of the bible?! It is actually objectively established that religious truths cannot be proven scientifically. What I can't understand is why anyone would want to keep pummeling their head into a post over that.

I'm not going to force you not to do that, but I feel I must stand up for reason and point out your folly.

I'm confused. If you're saying religious beliefs are first person phenomena, I agree. They are real for those that experience them. But why go on about "personal evidence"? Since it is only a passive reflection of your personal, subjective experience .. why assume anyone who doesn't already share that sort of experience will suddenly develop those beliefs based on your testimony? Surely you're not so naive as to think we are all basically the same. Even if we were the same, why assume that what you believe must be what we would believe if we considered it aright? Perhaps the shoe is on the other foot.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Part of the problem I see in this thread is there is no attempt to divide the non-objective Truth beliefs people arrive at by faith, and objectively justified true beliefs derived empirically without faith.

They aren't interchangeable terms the religious want to believe they are.

Saying you have personal evidence for beliefs and are unwilling to disclose it doesn't qualify your personal evidence as scientific evidence, and the fact you believe it can disproven shows it definitely isn't.

Really?!

I see quite the opposite. The Christians are repeatedly stating the difference between objective and subjective truth beliefs. The nonsense that scientific objective beliefs have to be applied to subjective religious beliefs.

The religious are saying they're not interchangeable, the non religious are saying they are.

The personal evidence is freely available to all. Have you not heard of the bible?! It is actually objectively established that religious truths cannot be proven scientifically. What I can't understand is why anyone would want to keep pummeling their head into a post over that.

I'm not going to force you not to do that, but I feel I must stand up for reason and point out your folly.

Subjective truth is an illusion. Someone repeatedly stating their beliefs is not the same as a verified true belief about the world at large. There is nothing rational about presenting subjective personal beliefs as true for anyone but the self: To do so would be utter nonsense.

You're arguing that "x is true because it is true to me" or "x is true because I say it is" should be held in equal regard to testable, verifiable empirical evidence.

As far as "having heard of the bible," in what sense do you mean? That there are those who hold beliefs derived from an antiquated text that only they can verify as true because they believe them but defy empirical testability?

You can't fathom why anyone would disbelieve "truths" that do not stand up to empirical verification?

Really?

Because the term "truth" does not apply to strongly held beliefs if they're not rational beliefs, and religion is #hashtagging on a descriptor that doesn't apply to a belief doesn't make a belief "true" in the absence of empirical data.