Theists - I want to know what you think

[Whateverist]

1. Do you think lacking a belief in god is rational?  Why, or why not?

2. Do you believe atheists who say they don’t believe because of lack of evidence?  If so, do you think that is a rational reason to not believe in god?

That position can be rational. But, it's incomplete, as it leaves origins unanswerable questions unanswered.

Fixed that for you.

[SteveII]

I’ve spent some time thinking about what you guys have expressed in the theist-only debate thread, and it occurred to me that I spend most of my time here at AF considering my own reasons for lacking god-belief, but I’ve never closely considered what you guys think about the lack of god-belief.  In doing so, I realized I have genuine questions.  So, for once, I’m going to shut up about what I think, and listen to what you all think about what I think.  This is not meant to be a debate thread (though I’m sure it will inevitably evolve in that direction, which is fine), and I have no intention or desire to deride anyone’s answers, so long as they answer honestly and respectfully.

First, I applaud and appreciate the attempt at a real discussion. 

1. Do you think lacking a belief in god is rational?  Why, or why not?

Yes, lacking belief in God is rational. You have not been presented incontrovertible proof to the contrary and as such a reasonable position to hold. However, such a position is a tacit admission of all kinds of gaps in your worldview--whether you know/admit they exist or not. 

2. Do you believe atheists who say they don’t believe because of lack of evidence?  If so, do you think that is a rational reason to not believe in god?

Perhaps because they do not understand the evidence that is available or have a personal bias against it. There is sufficient evidence and arguments for justified belief in something. But really, IMO, there are always other reasons. 

3. Do you think rational skepticism is the correct perspective to be coming from when considering god-belief?

For some. Others are more connected to the predisposition of the human race to believe in the supernatural. Still others want to have the relationship with God (and all that goes with that) that they observe in someone else. 

4. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic can reason their way to belief in god? 

I think reasoning can remove the barriers but not get you over the goal line. 

5. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic could be convinced by reasons, or do you think God would have to intervene in some way?

In addition to my #4 answer, IMO, God could intervene or circumstances could develop that gets you to take the very last step of genuine faith. 

6. Why do you think so many atheists were once theists?  Is it realistic to think a person could re-believe in god after deciding they could no longer believe due to lack of evidence?  Why or why not?

I'm not saying there are not any, but I have not encountered any former theist that understood systematic theology and how the big picture works together. Growing up in a theistic home is not sufficient to equip someone with sound doctrine and a real faith journey. There is always the possibility of changing one's beliefs. 

7.  Some of you had mentioned ‘sowing the seed’ as a reason to be here at AF.  If you were going to explain to an atheist what the best reason is to believe in god, what would it be?  I’m not trying to set up a ‘burden of proof’ trap.  I just want to know what you think would be, or should be the most convincing to an atheist and/or rational skeptic.

Don't confuse believing in God with living a Christian life. The former is a really low bar--even Satan believes in God. The value of a Christian life is a combination of salvation/redemption, purposeful living and a satisfying peace about the big picture.

[LadyForCamus]

That position can be rational. But, it's incomplete, as it leaves origins questions unanswered.

This is interesting.  Neo echoed the exact same sentiment.  That even though atheism can be a reasonable, rational position, it is in some lacking or incomplete.  I asked him, and I’ll ask you, can you expand on that?  If reason is insufficient to reach a conclusion about the existence of god, how did you reach the conclusion that atheism is incorrect without using reason?

When an atheist takes a stronger stance and asserts a positive belief that there is no god, that's not rational in my experience. There's no evidence that a universe can come from nothing (or however they want to phrase it), or that life can come from inanimate matter. But, those things must be explained in order to have a complete world view. The same person will disparagingly refer to creation as "magic," but has no problem believing that the all the matter and energy of the universe were compacted to a single infinitely dense point, and then expanded for no known reason, etc. Point being that if you're withholding belief in absence of conclusive evidence, and doing so honestly and consistently, you'd be agnostic, not atheist.

Just a quibble: Gnosticism refers to knowledge, where atheism refers to belief status.  For example, I consider myself an agnostic atheist, meaning I don’t currently accept the claim of god’s existence, but I make no claim of certainty one way or the other.

3. Do you think rational skepticism is the correct perspective to be coming from when considering god-belief?

First, define rational skepticism. Frequently an atheist dresses up an a priori materialist philosophy as rational skepticism or some such. In that case, no, it's not a correct perspective, as god has been defined as an an impossibility.

By rational skepticism, I mean using reason and evidence to make inferences and draw conclusions about what is true and real, and what is not.  I wouldn’t necessarily label myself a materialist, though if some thing exists that is not material (what ever that means), I don’t see how humans could ever gain access to it.

If properly defined, then rational skepticism is a valid component of considering the god proposition. I wouldn't call it the correct perspective on its own. Atheists tend to vastly overrate the role of reason in the human experience. We're more emotional and intuitive than rational.

I agree with you on this, though I would argue that reason is vastly more reliable than emotion or intuition.

Reason has allowed us to build some cool stuff, but when it comes to earthly life's most important decisions, we frequently ignore it and just go with our gut. I see no reason why religious belief should be any different.

For me, it’s because of what is at stake in accepting such a claim. Christianity and Islam specifically go a leap further and demand unwaivering trust in holy texts, which is something that goes against my intuition.

Is it realistic to think a person could re-believe in god after deciding they could no longer believe due to lack of evidence?  Why or why not?

Could? Sure. Evidence is abundant or lacking depending on the standards of evidence used.

Would? Generally not. Lack of evidence usually isn't the real issue. The real issue is that people don't like being judged. Surely you've seen people here say that even if god were proven to exist, they wouldn't worship.

So, you think it’s more that most atheists simply don’t want to be held accountable for their choices in life?  Neo has mentioned this a few times before as well.  My personal POV is that my own self-punishment is sufficient to guide my choices.  In other words, if I hurt someone, I feel awful and miserable about it until I can fix the problem I caused.  Its self-judgement, and I think it’s a good guide for most people with sufficient empathy, though history has taught us that humans are capable of horrific atrocities.  I do feel a deep anger and a sense of injustice when people commit horrific crimes and get away with it.  Part of me wishes there was some greater cosmic justice, but that it a purely emotional whim on my part.

Hey, thanks for taking the time to respond, Alpha.  I know you are on the fence about sticking around, but I just want you to know I’d be bummed if we lost you!

[Neo-Scholastic]

With regard to this truth proposition, do you think that believing god does not exist is less reasonable than believing he does?  

I think that is obvious otherwise I would not be a Christian.

Would you mind expanding on that a bit?  What would be an example of a position that is rational on the surface but incoherent on a deeper level?

One incoherent belief is that there can be personal meaning in an otherwise meaningless universe. Not in the sense that people cannot have personal goals or things they enjoy about life; but rather, in the sense that a purely physical universe cannot have meaning because physical objects aren’t about anything. They simply are. Other incoherent beliefs, that do not seem so on their faces, include that the universe can be intelligible or that there can be moral facts and natural laws apart from some transcendent reality.

4. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic can reason their way to belief in god?

No. There must first be an acknowledgment of the Holy Spirit by a receptive heart. Faith is the position we reason from, not the position we reason towards.

Do you find that this acknowledgment complicates discussions with atheists who need a reason for belief first?  I feel like this is the root of why theists and atheists end up talking at each other instead of to each other.  Atheist says, ‘why should I believe?’, and theist says, ‘well, you just have to believe.’  Do you think we ever move through such a monumental barrier between us?  Should theists even try to convert atheists?

&

5. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic could be convinced by reasons, or do you think God would have to intervene in some way?

As an existentialist (the Neo part of Neo-Scholastic), I say that before anyone, atheist or Christian, can even begin to reason he or she must embrace some basic absolute foundational beliefs in the absence of certainty. These ultimately unverifiable beliefs can be unrelated, mutually exclusive, or reinforcing of each other. One of these is the belief that the “sensus divinitatus”, sense that there is more to reality than what is immediately apparent in the physical world. For me, to accept this feeling a as an indication of the Divine supports, rather that undermines, my other foundational beliefs in the efficacy of human reason and the intelligibility of the universe. I believe it is theoretically possible for an atheist to read the demonstrations of Aquinas and start to believe in God. But as a practical matter I do not think such an atheist would accept them unless those demonstrations confirmed a deep seated intuition.

Reason can only remove objections to faith but ultimately faith comes from the Holy Spirit.

So then it comes down to being willing to leap to that belief in spite of the fact that it’s perfectly reasonable to not believe?

Not exactly. We find ourselves alone in an apparently absurd world. It’s ALL a leap of faith.

Do you think it irrational of an atheist to reject Christian testimony as evidence?

Depends. The most basic meaning of evidence is that which is evident. Whether what is evident supports a specific conclusion is entirely different. It is evident that 1st century Gospel writers recorded events they claimed to experience. It is evident that effects follow regularly from their causes. It is evident that the physical constants fall within an extremely narrow range of values that seems implausible to attribute solely to chance. However, that does not necessarily mean that the Gospel writers were entirely accurate or that the natural order manifests Divine purpose or that the universe was Intelligently designed. Those things must be argued for and defended against objections. But it is not right or proper to say there is ‘no evidence’. That’s just avoiding a debate on the merits of the claim being made. It is, however, perfectly fine to suggest that the evidence presented does not support the conclusions drawn from it.

[Drich]

I’ve spent some time thinking about what you guys have expressed in the theist-only debate thread, and it occurred to me that I spend most of my time here at AF considering my own reasons for lacking god-belief, but I’ve never closely considered what you guys think about the lack of god-belief.  In doing so, I realized I have genuine questions.  So, for once, I’m going to shut up about what I think, and listen to what you all think about what I think.  This is not meant to be a debate thread (though I’m sure it will inevitably evolve in that direction, which is fine), and I have no intention or desire to deride anyone’s answers, so long as they answer honestly and respectfully.

1. Do you think lacking a belief in god is rational?  Why, or why not?

yes
There is a way in the bible to vet the existance of God. if yoou follow this path honestly. God PROMISED to show up.

2. Do you believe atheists who say they don’t believe because of lack of evidence?

I believe they have been taught to look for God where God said He will never be found.

If so, do you think that is a rational reason to not believe in god?

No. If God is who He says He is then He can onlly be found where He Himself Said to look for Him. To look anywhere else is foolishness

3. Do you think rational skepticism is the correct perspective to be coming from when considering god-belief?

why not? 

4. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic can reason their way to belief in god?  

No as God by nature is counter intuitive. God is the oppsite of man and oppsite of what man wants. So then why assume Man will stumble onto God?

5. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic could be convinced by reasons, or do you think God would have to intervene in some way?

God said only He can provide the 'evidence needed.' The reason it is withheld is because the person looking demands God provide what they want in the way they want it. When most times God does things on his own accord and expects you to meet Him not Him serve you and what you want to see.

6. Why do you think so many atheists were once theists?

The theist had a corrupt version of God. Once so bad so far off God refused to work with it. Jesus explains this in the parablle of the wise and foolish builder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu5bBDRpzPM

The Rock is Jesus/The understanding of God the house are your works/deeds/Christian Faith. Now if you build your house/faith and understanding on Christ WHEN God sends the wind and rain your house/faith will remain as you will see God helping you through the trial no matter the outcome. Now when your idea of God is so corrupt When God sends the winds and rains, the God of the biblle will not be there to support the god of your church or the god of your fathers. As you idea of God was built on the sand.

 Is it realistic to think a person could re-believe in god after deciding they could no longer believe due to lack of evidence?  Why or why not?

Not without evidence/God showing upp as He promises to do for each of us. Think doubting thomas. Did Jesus say F-him for doubting? or did He show up and let Thomas finger his wounds? God gave Thomas exactly what he needed. So too does He promise to give us what we need.

As far as giving up and retrying... It really depends on whether or not you think you got the absolute "rock" version of god out the gate.. I can tell you if your god was not a bible only/no doctrine God, then probably god a religious version of Him. close but often times built on sand which when tested falls flat. 

7.  Some of you had mentioned ‘sowing the seed’ as a reason to be here at AF.  If you were going to explain to an atheist what the best reason is to believe in god, what would it be?  I’m not trying to set up a ‘burden of proof’ trap.  I just want to know what you think would be, or should be the most convincing to an atheist and/or rational skeptic.

sowing seed it simply representing the truth, and allowing the truth too take root on it's own
, and allowing God to make/allow that seed to grow. Our task is to simply represent the truth, we have no power aside examples of our own walk/life to share. over time God will start opening doors in your life. Maybe at first you might want to attribute things to chance, but over time there is just no wy to have so much needed simply given, and in way not hear of/seemingly possible

That is God fostering the root to grow.

[Mister Agenda]

Not a theist and not trying to answer the OP's questions, just chiming in to try to clarify the difference between belief in lack and lack of belief.

I lack belief that you have a $20 bill in your right front pocket. That doesn't mean I believe you don't have a $20 in your right front pocket. It wouldn't be particularly unusual if you did. But if I had to guess, I'd go with no, because there are more ways for there not to be one in your right front pocket than there are for it to be there. Maybe it's in another pocket (maybe even one in all your other pockets but the one I picked). Maybe you don't have pockets. Maybe you don't have a $20. But I'm not claiming you don't, because I don't have enough information to say that. I do have enough information to put the odds less than 50/50, so you could say I believe the odds are less than 50/50; but I still don't believe you don't have the $20. If you do, you could settle the question by pulling the $20 out of your pocket and showing it to me, and if you don't you could show that by emptying your pocket to show it isn't in there.

One of the reasons that many atheists are careful about saying that they believe God doesn't exist when they mean probably doesn't exist, or this God definitely doesn't exist but that God might possibly exist; is that so many theists will jump on 'God doesn't exist' to trot out 'you'd have to be omniscient to know that!' or 'did you search the whole universe before reaching that conclusion?' or 'that's a faith position!'. And then we have to explain, in detail, how we're not taking a position of absolute certainty, it's just that the claim doesn't seem likely enough to convince us.

So then, agnostic atheists or rational skeptics, who largely would say the same thing about any other proposed deity, or leprechauns or Bigfoot for that matter; state their position carefully: we don't believe in the nonexistence of God, we just lack belief that any such being actually does exist, but if you can demonstrate otherwise I'm very interested in seeing whether what you have will stand up to scrutiny.

Full disclosure: I DO believe that the Abrahamic God described in the Bible doesn't really exist, as sure as I'd be about that $20 if I knew you were completely naked; but I have to acknowledge that I can't be so sure about Artemis or the God of deism.

[Neo-Scholastic]

One of the reasons that many atheists are careful about saying that they believe God doesn't exist when they mean probably doesn't exist, or this God definitely doesn't exist but that God might possibly exist; is that so many theists will jump on 'God doesn't exist' to trot out 'you'd have to be omniscient to know that!' or 'did you search the whole universe before reaching that conclusion?' or 'that's a faith position!'.

That's just a bad Christian apologetic. Avoiding a terrible argument IMHO is not sufficient reason to trivialize the meaning of being an atheist. It comes off as a dodge.

[Godscreated]

I’ve spent some time thinking about what you guys have expressed in the theist-only debate thread, and it occurred to me that I spend most of my time here at AF considering my own reasons for lacking god-belief, but I’ve never closely considered what you guys think about the lack of god-belief.  In doing so, I realized I have genuine questions.  So, for once, I’m going to shut up about what I think, and listen to what you all think about what I think.  This is not meant to be a debate thread (though I’m sure it will inevitably evolve in that direction, which is fine), and I have no intention or desire to deride anyone’s answers, so long as they answer honestly and respectfully.

 
Thank you for this opportunity. I see the debate as a way of each side coming to a better understanding of each other and thus better discussions from both sides.

1. Do you think lacking a belief in god is rational?  Why, or why not?

I'm not sure whether I think it's rational or not is important, I do know God doesn't think it's rational, God gave us the created nature around us to say it is not rational to lack a belief in Him. If one doesn't consider the evidence that is around us and the consistence of the scriptures then I suppose it might be considered rational. When one looks to see if their disbelief is rational or not they must put aside all preconceived notions and take an honest look at what is being presented from the other side, examine it and then make that decision.  

2. Do you believe atheists who say they don’t believe because of lack of evidence?  If so, do you think that is a rational reason to not believe in god?

When I hear an atheist say this I'm fairly certain they have avoided looking at the whole of what the Christian faith presents. I know that the atheist here will not listen to creation scientist even though they have degrees from top universities and are well known in their fields, scientist that have written extensively on many different subjects. Is this the kind of evidence you had in mind, or a more direct evidence such as God showing himself to people.

3. Do you think rational skepticism is the correct perspective to be coming from when considering god-belief?

I'll say this is any skepticism the correct perspective to have when considering something different than what you believe at the time, doesn't any skepticism bring bias of some kind into the picture. We are speaking of a spiritual being and a spiritual world and skepticism abounds against this in today's society.  An open mind IMO is the start in a consideration of God, He is outside the understanding of anyone who does not believe and to bring a skeptical mind to the table is the start of eliminating God as a possibility.

4. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic can reason their way to belief in god? 

God himself is a logical being, so yes logic is a beginning to belief, looking at things logically should be natural, but without the call from the Father by the Holy Spirit one will not begin to look nor can one finish the process. God does call all and most never realize when it happened, they find themselves considering God for many different reasons and those reasons are from God's calling. 

5. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic could be convinced by reasons, or do you think God would have to intervene in some way?

God must intervene but probably not in the way you might be thinking. Jesus said that no one comes to the Father except through me. Jesus also said that the Father must call one to consider Jesus and the Holy Spirit is in the middle of this whole thing. With this said I believe many people can start the journey because of reasons/reasoning, but as I said the calling has to come before the journey starts and must be finished through conviction which come through the Holy Spirit. Please remember that God doesn't force, He will guide those who actually seek.

6. Why do you think so many atheists were once theists?  Is it realistic to think a person could re-believe in god after deciding they could no longer believe due to lack of evidence?  Why or why not?

On this question I must say that anyone who doesn't believe in the God of the Bible is an atheist, as an atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in the God of the Bible. So because of that I do not believe most atheist were once Christians. It does seem that most here say they once were but my belief is that once you know Christ you can never unlearn the knowing and thus can't be an atheist, just a rejector. My belief is that those who tried and did not come to terms with what God offered can still come back as long as there is a calling and I find that God is a God of many chances. I do know this that it is harder to do because one has to admit they were wrong about God and that they are a sinner who needs His forgiveness. Been there done that and know how hard, but not impossible, to do. Thank goodness for the God of many chances.  
 

7.  Some of you had mentioned ‘sowing the seed’ as a reason to be here at AF.  If you were going to explain to an atheist what the best reason is to believe in god, what would it be?  I’m not trying to set up a ‘burden of proof’ trap.  I just want to know what you think would be, or should be the most convincing to an atheist and/or rational skeptic.

I always say it is the living relationship with Him, it's a relationship that can/will bring greater joy in one's life than can be imagined. I know you've heard us say that doing God's work can be a burden at times and there is a reason for that and in God's wisdom it is the greatest experience one will have. God calls His people to serve outside their comfort zone and I know this to be true because He has only once called me to do anything remotely comfortable to me. The experiences were frightening to begin with but by the time I was called to move on to something else the experience had become a great joy and I found I had learned so much from others even from children. Why do I believe the relationship approach is most convincing, one reason, most people have experienced a good relationship in their lives and can connect on that. Now this is mostly with adults, children are different and let me say this I disagree with teaching them the fear of hell to get them to believe because that is something that just doesn't last with many when the have a bad experience in the church, they are the ones who find a way to justify leaving the church. So with adults I like to share my experiences with God with them in hopes they can actually see that God is a difference maker for the better. 

Thanks!

 You are welcome and again thank you for this opportunity to share and not be side tracked, because as far as I'm concerned this is something that I want let others side track me on. If they have legitimate questions I will answer and will be more than happy to answer all the questions you might have or address any disagreements you might have.

GC

[Mister Agenda]

One of the reasons that many atheists are careful about saying that they believe God doesn't exist when they mean probably doesn't exist, or this God definitely doesn't exist but that God might possibly exist; is that so many theists will jump on 'God doesn't exist' to trot out 'you'd have to be omniscient to know that!' or 'did you search the whole universe before reaching that conclusion?' or 'that's a faith position!'.

That's just a bad Christian apologetic. Avoiding a terrible argument IMHO is not sufficient reason to trivialize the meaning of being an atheist. It comes off as a dodge.

To you, but you're widely known to be uncharitable towards atheists, so I could not give less of a shit about your opinion on the matter.

[Neo-Scholastic]

That's just a bad Christian apologetic. Avoiding a terrible argument IMHO is not sufficient reason to trivialize the meaning of being an atheist. It comes off as a dodge.

To you, but you're widely known to be uncharitable towards atheists, so I could not give less of a shit about your opinion on the matter.

I vocally oppose atheism without invalidating the humanity atheists.