Originally posted by SuzianneYes, it's another topic although I understand why one would think they are the same.
Is this also why some atheists take offense at Christians saying "Well, that's your choice", or is that another topic entirely?
As to the word rejection, to my ears if you reject god it means you sort of push him away. You believe in him, but then choose (again, I understand why your brought that up 🙂) to not believe (but secretly you do).
To me it sounds like a case of semantics as to the meaning of the word rejection. Which I don't think is particulary interesting.
Why is this word so important to you, Suzianne? Do you think there are other reasons why we don't believe?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneWell I can't speak for others but the sentences "I reject gods" and "I reject gods' existence"
To explain further, I see this thought: (I don't reject your god), as being the same as (I don't reject your god's existence), so to say, in effect, (I don't reject your god's existence, I don't think it exists.) as not making a lick of sense.
Edit: Similarly, (I do reject your god) would be the same as (I do reject your god's existence). So that's basically where I'm coming from.
Explain where I'm going wrong here.
do not mean the same thing.
However, reject is still an action.
I have never believed that gods existed. Then people came along and presented arguments
saying that a god existed and that I should believe in/worship that god... And I rejected
those arguments. But while rejecting those arguments I still never rejected your god OR it's
existence because to 'reject' something, I first have to think it exists.
Perhaps it's possible to have a meaning of reject where perhaps technically speaking you could
apply it, but even if that's the case it's the wrong word.
For example: Buddhists who don't have a belief in a god or gods are technically atheists.
However it's almost always the wrong word to use when describing them even while being true.
Reject is the wrong word here, even if you can find some technical way in which it's linguistically correct.
it has all the wrong tone and connotations.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by Great King RatYes. this exactly.
Yes, it's another topic although I understand why one would think they are the same.
As to the word rejection, to my ears if you reject god it means you sort of push him away. You believe in him, but then choose (again, I understand why your brought that up 🙂) to not believe (but secretly you do).
To me it sounds like a case of semantics as to ...[text shortened]... s word so important to you, Suzianne? Do you think there are other reasons why we don't believe?
Reject FEELS wrong, even if you could technically (and I still maintain you can't) make it fit.
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeOkay, now this is getting down to brass tacks.
Yes. I cannot comprehend believing something on faith.
It just doesn't compute.
If I see [sufficient] evidence for something I believe it.
If I see [sufficient] evidence against something I disbelieve it.
And everything else I have no belief either way.
Now I have over time got better at rational thinking and analysing evidence.
I wasn't ...[text shortened]... he case.
If I HAD a choice, I would choose rationality and evidence.
But I am not sure I do.
You say you've never really believed in God at all, despite having some education in a CofE sponsored school environment. All because He never met your expectation of 'evidence'. (Easy now, I'm not trying to be inflammatory.) My view is that you're looking for birds underwater, or fish in the sky. God will never meet your expectation of 'evidence' or 'proof' for reasons I've already expressed. Through faith is really the only way to directly experience God. As you've found, you cannot find Him through logic or through forensic clues. So if the only pathway to 'truth' for you is evidence-based, then no wonder you never found God. Basically, you're 'doing it wrong'. God is determined through faith, not through evidence or proof.
Myself, I cannot remember ever not believing in God. It just was never a real possibility for me. This doesn't mean I would use the yardstick of faith to determine a criminal case if I were on a jury, I would weigh the evidence, because that is the way those things are determined, and not through faith.
I suspect this is why we find ourselves at odds today. I wouldn't categorize it as (faith vs. evidence), but rather just (faith vs. not faith), at least regarding the question of God.
Originally posted by Great King RatNo, that's not it at all. It is because the root of the sin of not believing in God lies in the actual rejection of God (and the Christ), and by extension, rejection of His offer of salvation.
Yes, it's another topic although I understand why one would think they are the same.
As to the word rejection, to my ears if you reject god it means you sort of push him away. You believe in him, but then choose (again, I understand why your brought that up 🙂) to not believe (but secretly you do).
To me it sounds like a case of semantics as to ...[text shortened]... s word so important to you, Suzianne? Do you think there are other reasons why we don't believe?
I guess I'm just wondering aloud if somehow atheists feel (unconsciously, perhaps) that this actual rejection is the closing of a door and therefore they somehow shy away from actually admitting their (action of) rejection.
Not that they'd ever admit it if this were the case, and thus my circumlocution.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneOh, yes I've said it before.
Okay, now this is getting down to brass tacks.
You say you've never really believed in God at all, despite having some education in a CofE sponsored school environment. All because He never met your expectation of 'evidence'. (Easy now, I'm not trying to be inflammatory.) My view is that you're looking for birds underwater, or fish in the sky. Go ...[text shortened]... th vs. evidence), but rather just (faith vs. not faith), at least regarding the question of God.
The argument between us is simply over whether or not faith is a valid method of
forming beliefs.
That dispute covers almost the entirety of our disagreements.
Although our disagreement over capital punishment is probably independent of that.
However the point of my previous post was that I don't know I have a choice.
I don't know that I can believe anything on faith even if I wanted to.
How I form beliefs has been shaped by whatever combination of nature and nurture
to preclude faith as an option.
Now I'm not complaining because if I did have a choice I would choose not to be able
to believe based on faith.
However when people tell me I CHOOSE not to believe in god I have to say that no I don't
choose not to believe.
I need evidence. Period.
Without it I CAN'T believe.
Now I could pretend, I could worship, I could go through the motions, but I couldn't believe.
Also what constitutes evidence for god is one hellavaload more than flying fish and aquatic birds...
Partly because both exist.
Evidence for P, is an observation "A" of reality that makes P more likely to be true than before A
was observed.
Proof* is evidence, collectively or individually that makes P likely beyond whatever threshold of
reasonable doubt you ascribe to. [* we are not talking mathematical or epistemic but of scientific
proof here]
Flying fish don't make god more likely. But then you knew that.
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneAtheists don't believe there is a door.
No, that's not it at all. It is because the root of the sin of not believing in God lies in the actual rejection of God (and the Christ), and by extension, rejection of His offer of salvation.
I guess I'm just wondering aloud if somehow atheists feel (unconsciously, perhaps) that this actual rejection is the closing of a door and therefore they s ...[text shortened]... ) rejection.
Not that they'd ever admit it if this were the case, and thus my circumlocution.
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeI get what you're saying, in a way, because I, too, can be a juggler of semantics, and word play amuses me on occasion (and I have been accused once or twice of being pedantic). I just think an excellent reason to reject something is exactly because you don't think it exists.
Well I can't speak for others but the sentences "I reject gods" and "I reject gods' existence"
do not mean the same thing.
However, reject is still an action.
I have never believed that gods existed. Then people came along and presented arguments
saying that a god existed and that I should believe in/worship that god... And I rejected
those ...[text shortened]... technical way in which it's linguistically correct.
it has all the wrong tone and connotations.
I see your point about Buddhism, but I think that's a little bit different. I would call them atheists (and have, more than once) but I do see your point how 'rejection' doesn't quite seem to fit their stance on the Abrahamic God. Maybe to me it seems different because they do believe in something, it's just that that 'something' is non-dualist in nature.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneI can't reject an offer I don't believe is real.
No, that's not it at all. It is because the root of the sin of not believing in God lies in the actual rejection of God (and the Christ), and by extension, rejection of His offer of salvation.
I guess I'm just wondering aloud if somehow atheists feel (unconsciously, perhaps) that this actual rejection is the closing of a door and therefore they s ...[text shortened]... ) rejection.
Not that they'd ever admit it if this were the case, and thus my circumlocution.
I guess I'm just wondering aloud if somehow atheists feel (unconsciously, perhaps) that this
actual rejection is the closing of a door and therefore they somehow shy away from actually admitting
their (action of) rejection.
This is probably because you just don't understand how atheists think. Not having ever been one.
I don't believe your god exists... and NEVER have.
I have precisely zero worry that your god exists. None, zero zip nada nothing.
It's not even a question for me.
This is a very common view among theists that atheists are (even just subconsciously) 'rejecting'
gods offer for some perverse reason of our own. Often because they think we want to go around sinning
and want an excuse to do so.
And it just bares no relation to reality.
It also implies we are all lying when we tell you our reasons for being atheists and not having a belief in gods.
AND crucially... It's an incredibly Christian/monotheistic centric view of atheism.
Look at it from the atheist perspective... We don't believe in ANY gods and their respective afterlives.
I lack belief in god's I haven't even heard of, from religions long dead, or in far flung parts of the world.
Why do you think we keep correcting god to gods?
Christianity has no special place or treatment in or from atheism.
It features so often not because WE treat it differently but YOU do, all you Christians here, and we meet
in every day life.
So, why not just trust us when we tell you what it is we think and why?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneI believe in all kinds of things. being an atheist doesn't mean I have no beliefs.
I get what you're saying, in a way, because I, too, can be a juggler of semantics, and word play amuses me on occasion (and I have been accused once or twice of being pedantic). I just think an excellent reason to reject something is exactly because you don't think it exists.
I see your point about Buddhism, but I think that's a little bit different. I ...[text shortened]... because they do believe in something, it's just that that 'something' is non-dualist in nature.
I just don't believe in gods [or afterlives, souls, the supernatural ect]
What I tend to believe in, is people. I'm, among other things, a Humanist.
I have a moral system, and I have beliefs about the way the world works, and
what happens when I die...
Why are Buddhists ideas more valid because theirs stem from a religion?