"Why Do Men Reject God?"

Spirituality

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Joined
31 May 06
Moves
1795
21 Nov 13

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Bull. Show me this evidence please, because I currently not only think it doesn't
exist but that it cannot exist.

Genesis ring a bell?

How do you think Moses knew what happened in the Garden, if not for the testimony of God Himself?

pre-written accounts must be and are open to huge interpretation and cannot be
as definitive as you are ...[text shortened]... t.

Wut?
Where did I reveal a missing of such aspects?
And what is the relevance, exactly?[/b]
Oh. You're a YEC, I hadn't got that.


Genesis is a fairy tale and is not evidence of any kind for what has actually happened in our history.


pre-written accounts must be and are open to huge interpretation and cannot be
as definitive as you are making out.

Oh, so now you're the expert on the very thing you insist doesn't--- cannot--- exist?
You seriously don't take yourself, um, seriously?
Do you?



Ah, you misunderstand me, So I will clarify.

You originally said "Archaeological evidence notwithstanding, we do have evidence which pre-dates
written history which emphatically reveals that man from the beginning experienced nothing
but a monotheistic view of life, and further supports the idea that out of monotheism sprang
polytheism."

Emphasis mine.

Now, as I was labouring under the assumption that we were talking about historical and archaeological
scientific evidence and not biblical fairytales; I was saying that evidence that 'emphatically' reveals
humans to have been monotheistic religious believers from the beginning of our existence does not and
cannot exist. This is not incompatible with saying that evidence as to what early man believed can't
exist, it just can't be as clear and emphatic as you were claiming.

However If you consider the bible story of creation as evidence then we are not going to agree as
I accept science and you are accepting nonsense.



As for your next point... Context is everything.
When dealing with a claim as to whether or not the large majority of people have always believed in
a single all powerful supreme being it very much matters whether people believed in god in the singular
or gods in the plural, or the supernatural but not gods.

Thus when dealing with this particular question the distinction should absolutely be made.

Quiz Master

RHP Arms

Joined
09 Jun 07
Moves
48793
21 Nov 13

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Do you have the values?
Originally posted by wolfgang59
How long do you think monotheism has been around? (Call it Y)

How long do you think Man has been around? (Call it X)

What is Y/X ?

I guess it would differ from GF's calculation. (?)


Do you have the values?

How can I possibly know what you think? 🙄

Quiz Master

RHP Arms

Joined
09 Jun 07
Moves
48793
21 Nov 13

Just for the record: atheists bury their dead.

Boston Lad

USA

Joined
14 Jul 07
Moves
43012
21 Nov 13
1 edit

Originally posted by twhitehead

It depends what you mean by 'rejection'. Are you talking about rejecting something you believe exists, or rejecting the possibility that it exists. They are very different meanings.
For example, if I say that GB rejects fairies, how would you interpret that? Do you see yourself as rejecting fairies?
What if I said GB rejects the Queen Fairies' love? Would you accept that statement as true?
2.4 "But a natural man [unbeliever] does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them [the Gospel and Bible doctrine], because they are spiritually discerned [appraised]."
(1 Corinthians 2:14)

Joined
31 May 06
Moves
1795
21 Nov 13

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Just for the record: atheists bury their dead.
Except when we fire them off into space or hold Viking funeral pyres...


http://cdn.mos.totalfilm.com/images/f/friggas-funeral_147685-fli_1383208376.jpg

F

Unknown Territories

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
20408
21 Nov 13

Originally posted by googlefudge
Oh. You're a YEC, I hadn't got that.


Genesis is a fairy tale and is not evidence of any kind for what has actually happened in our history.


[quote][b]pre-written accounts must be and are open to huge interpretation and cannot be
as definitive as you are making out.

Oh, so now you're the expert on the very thing you insist doesn't--- cann ...[text shortened]... s.

Thus when dealing with this particular question the distinction should absolutely be made.[/b]
Oh. You're a YEC, I hadn't got that.
You hadn't got that because I hadn't dun given it.

I believe the earth is exactly the age as described in the Bible: ancient.
Indeterminately ancient.

Genesis is a fairy tale and is not evidence of any kind for what has actually happened in our history.
Says the expert who opines his
oh! the gender-ist bigotry of it all!
expert opinion on subjects he
more bigotry!
insists do not otherwise exist.

Let me recap for you, fudge googler. A fairy tale includes magical creatures
such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, dwarves, giants, mermaids, or gnomes--- none of which can be found in the narrative of Genesis
and the stories generally involve euphoric experiences, or unusual happiness.
None of this fits the story, strangely.

Ah, you misunderstand me, So I will clarify.
No.
I understood you perfectly; you simply weren't prepared to be called short on your contradictory opinions.

Now, as I was labouring under the assumption that we were talking about historical and archaeological scientific evidence and not biblical fairytales...
It seems as you are relatively new to the whole history-as-a-science thing, so let me get you up to speed. The Bible has yet to be shown in error on any provable historical assertion, despite a century and a half of strenuous attempts.
As history, it has no peer.

However If you consider the bible story of creation as evidence then we are not going to agree as I accept science and you are accepting nonsense.
You do, do you?
What science is it that you accept relative to how life began on the planet, exactly? What is the name of that study? How can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously when you continually demonstrate a willful ignorance and application of basic words and concepts?
To wit: science.
"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."
Wikipedia, internet Bible

When we discuss creation, we're discussing history; we're discussing a one-time, non-recurring event--- never before, never again, certainly not now.

Thus when dealing with this particular question the distinction should absolutely be made.
Quite.
Quit choking on gnats while swallowing camels, and simply address the inquiry.
God-in-whatever-form has been in the consciousness of man throughout his history.
What makes a limited few consciously buck that trend?

F

Unknown Territories

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
20408
21 Nov 13

Originally posted by Pianoman1
[b]"Why Do Men Reject God?"

A Loaded question, GB! To reject something implies that there must be something there in the first place to cast off or refuse. Atheists do not "reject" God; they do not believe in his existence.

"Most people in the world, throughout the ages of history, have believed in some concept of a Supreme Being."

It ...[text shortened]... view that without substantial evidence, agnosticism is the only intelligent and logical stance.[/b]
Atheists do not "reject" God; they do not believe in his existence.
Can you think of another group who opts to use the thing they are against for the root of their self-described label?

It is entirely natural to want to explain the Universe in terms of a "Supreme Being".
Really? Why? How?
If nature is the creator of man, then nature is responsible for the latent desire of man to explain the universe, and also to attribute some attributes to an unnamed deity... who doesn't exist.
Seems incredibly inefficient of nature to do so, IMO.

Since most of the world's population is not Christian one might suggest it is unreasonable and not the norm to believe in Jesus.
Let's leave the cart behind the horse for a bit.
You've already acquiesced the thought that man wants a deity, for whatever reason.
That's where one begins.
Although I contend it matters in the end which 'god' wins ones allegiance in the end, I think it's more important to clarify the issue of 'if' first.
Once the 'if' is settled, the 'whom' pretty much takes care of itself.

It seems to me to be entirely reasonable to hold the view that without substantial evidence, agnosticism is the only intelligent and logical stance.
Without getting into all the varying denominations of unbelief, agnosticism is a fine waiting station to wait in, but hardly satisfactory for end results.

The agnostic wants to say there's simply not enough evidence to make up one's mind, but refuses to clarify what specific evidence would be enough... while he makes up his mind otherwise!

Joined
30 Dec 07
Moves
9905
21 Nov 13
1 edit

The primary reason for my atheism right now is that god seems extraneous to any interesting or valid arguments. I can come up with a host of reasons why I'm glad a god probably does not exist, and a few reasons it makes me sad, but the etiology is separate and has more to do with the fact that, when I was a child, I thought "God" referred to my mom's landlord, who's name was "Rod."

Various answers to questions I had reinforced this phonetic misunderstanding: "Where is God?" "Above us." Rod lived on a hill overlooking the church. "What does he do?" "He answers our prayers, and helps us throughout our lives." When my mom had a problem with the house, or needed some help with something, she'd call Rod -- those were the only prayers that ever seemed to be answered (or that made any sense, as no one ever told me what a soul was -- how am I supposed to tell if it's being "kept," as in the "now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep" prayer I said before bed every night?). I figured these were rituals, like being respectful to my parents and grandparents, that showed honor to a respected person. I figured that Rod/God was a respected person in the community as a whole, like my grandfather was a respected person to me.

When my grandfather died, I was so angry at him. I was told that he had moved in with Rod, and was watching me but wouldn't come see me. Eventually I realized what death was, after my brain had matured enough to get past magical thinking, and I realized that I shouldn't be mad at Rod for having flooded the Earth and killing all the animals (I knew that animals died -- the connection to people, once made, was terrifying) because he was just an old man and had no power over the weather.

By the time I figured out that Rod wasn't God, I had no idea what people were talking about. I figured they must all just be talking about something I hadn't met yet, but perhaps they had met it or knew someone who did. And when I realized that wasn't the case, I figured there must be something wrong with them or wrong with me, because it didn't make any sense at all. I evaluated various religions, looking for something reasonable, before realizing that they all had the problem of being philosophies declared immune to reason, all incompatible and all extraneous, as far as I could tell.

Dealing with mortality and morality has since been fascinating and enjoyable. Since I finished my confused search, which was around the end of middle school, I've engaged with many philosophers, and some of the best make reference to divinity. However, it's often extraneous (especially in Aristotle) to the point being made, and so I've not had a problem accepting the arguments that make short reference to god as decent with no reference to all. Either way, you didn't ask for my life story, but I can guarantee that I tried very hard to see reason in belief, and it cost me a lot of emotional pain to admit to myself that there was no God, and probably no afterlife, and all the people I ever love or have loved simply will not exist one day. But, by the time I realized the claim being made, I'd gone past the age at which I was most prone to indoctrination (and I say that word without trying to invoke its negative connotations -- many type of indoctrination, even into falsehoods, help people live good lives and help society function better). As is, I'm glad to have existed at all, and to have loved at all, and each day is a blessing (in the secular sense). 🙂

Quiz Master

RHP Arms

Joined
09 Jun 07
Moves
48793
21 Nov 13

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b}
Let me recap for you, fudge googler. A fairy tale includes magical creatures and the stories generally involve euphoric experiences, or unusual happiness.
None of this fits the story, strangely.

[/b]
Nope ... no magical creatures in Genesis.
except .. er ... a god, a talking snake, a man without a father or mother,
a woman made from a rib, a Cherubim, a flaming sword ...

Quiz Master

RHP Arms

Joined
09 Jun 07
Moves
48793
21 Nov 13
2 edits

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Why Do Men Reject God?"
Before asking why certain phenomena happen perhaps we should
check that the phenomena in question actually do happen. How many
men do you know that have rejected god? (And by this I do not mean
men you think/assume have rejected god but ones who have actually
stood up shaking their fist and saying "God I reject thee" )

Joined
31 May 06
Moves
1795
21 Nov 13

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Nope ... no magical creatures in Genesis.
except .. er ... a god, a talking snake, a man without a father or mother,
a woman made from a rib, a Cherubim, a flaming sword ...
Yeah, I was thinking that. No magic in the bible... seriously???? 😕

That's the kind of thing that makes me want to quote Inigo Montoya

I don't think that word [magic] means what he thinks it means...


I'm still readjusting from thinking I was talking to someone who was living in
approximately the same universe I was and had a similar grasp of logic and reason.

Finding out I was talking to an (Old(ish) Earth Creationist, I stand corrected)
who doesn't believe you can analyse the past rationally and scientifically and
is so disconnected from reality that they think that ...
"The Bible has yet to be shown in error on any provable historical assertion,
despite a century and a half of strenuous attempts.
As history, it has no peer."

Means that we are so far apart in terms of world view and there are so many separate
ideas and concepts we would need to cover to deal with this issue that I am not sure
I have the time or energy to deal with this right now.

Pitfall of having long breaks, I forget who's who.

However if anyone else feels like giving it a shot...

Boston Lad

USA

Joined
14 Jul 07
Moves
43012
22 Nov 13
1 edit

Originally posted by wolfgang59

Before asking why certain phenomena happen perhaps we should
check that the phenomena in question actually do happen. How many
men do you know that have rejected god? (And by this I do not mean
men you think/assume have rejected god but ones who have actually
stood up shaking their fist and saying "God I reject thee" )
"How many men do you know that have rejected god?" -wolfgang59

We are what we think; our thoughts are reflected in our decisions, words and deeds; we also change over time. God alone knows who has accepted or rejected His Grace Plan to reconcile mankind for personal relationship with Himself.

Joined
31 May 06
Moves
1795
22 Nov 13

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Oh. You're a YEC, I hadn't got that.
You hadn't got that because I hadn't dun given it.

I believe the earth is exactly the age as described in the Bible: ancient.
Indeterminately ancient.

Genesis is a fairy tale and is not evidence of any kind for what has actually happened in our history.
Says the expert who opines his[hidden]oh! ...[text shortened]... iousness of man throughout his history.
What makes a limited few consciously buck that trend?[/b]
You know that mangling my forum handle just makes you look stupid and petty right?



Look I'm not going to go into this right now, We would have to do a complete backtrack
and find out where we have common ground (if any) and re-approach this issue.

I am sorry I made the mistake of assuming that we accepted certain things in common
we evidently don't. And trying to unpick this from here would just be an ungodly mess.


I am afraid it's not a very satisfying response, but I'm too tired to give another.
I'm sure this issue will come up again and maybe then we can tackle it starting from
some common ground rather than simply talking at cross purposes.

Joined
31 May 06
Moves
1795
22 Nov 13

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"How many men do you know that have rejected god?" -wolfgang59

We are what we think; our thoughts are reflected in our decisions, words and deeds; we also change over time. God alone knows who has accepted or rejected His Grace Plan to reconcile mankind for personal relationship with Himself.
Question begging again.

Gods existence or otherwise is part of the discussion and you can't just assume it.

You (your quote) asked "why do men reject god"...

As it's your question you should demonstrate that people DO in fact reject god.
(in any significant numbers, or even at all)

Otherwise we are trying to find explanations for a phenomena that may not even exist.


So, over to you.

Do YOU have evidence that any significant numbers of people reject god?

F

Unknown Territories

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
20408
22 Nov 13

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Nope ... no magical creatures in Genesis.
except .. er ... a god, a talking snake, a man without a father or mother,
a woman made from a rib, a Cherubim, a flaming sword ...
I can only assume that you didn't read the entire post.
A creature with the gift of vocalization is decidedly not within the group normally associated with fairy tales.
The creation of man (previously non-existent) has nothing to do with magic, nor does the man himself qualify as a magical creature, nor the woman.
You might be able to make a case for angels, but it's a stretch to put them in the same realm.