Atheists who hate god

  • Thread starter Thread starter LoganBryce
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LoganBryce said:
I was raised religious. All I care about is god. […] But at the end of the day I want to believe but my mind tells me I don’t. But even if my doubts never go away I’ll try to believe until the day I die. So would I go to hell for this?
Click to expand...
True faith isn’t a mental act. By that I mean, faith isn’t the same as firmly thinking that God does exist. Nor is it the same as being “convinced” that God exists. Faith is something that is simpler and subtler and more intimate than the thought “yay God exists!” Doubt, on the other hand, is a mental act, or rather a cognitive state that is brought about by mental acts, and at the same time makes more of those mental acts (of skepticism) possible. So faith and doubt aren’t simply opposite thoughts or views. True faith lies in a deeper, more intimate domain, and doubt lies in a domain that obscures that deeper level but does not quite undo it. So it is possible for faith to be subconsciously present while consciously you are in doubt.

Does this mean everything’s fine even if you doubt? Unfortunately not. It is important to recover your conscious faith, because only when faith becomes conscious can it effectively drive your Christian walk. So doubt isn’t without dangers. There is danger in it because the stronger doubts become, the harder it becomes to recover (or re-cognize) your obscured faith. And since doubt can occur only in a reflecting cognitive state, there is danger in this very state of mind.

How did you get to be a doubter? I think the general process is this: at some point the skeptical part of your mind tricked you into believing that it is entitled to being heard. It really isn’t entitled at all, but it’s understandable that you’ve fallen for this deception because this is what the modern world including upbringing and education teach you: be skeptical, be critical, doubt everything, “form your own opinion”. So you’ve come to believe that doubts are worthy of attention, and that there would be something wrong with dismissing them without addressing them. This is really how doubt works. It’s a subtle little monster that dresses up in the garb of “reasonableness”, knocks on the door of your attention and says: “Hey listen, let’s ask some questions, hey? Do you see any scientific evidence for God?” So you open your mind’s door, you let the little monster of reasonable doubt in, and start “considering the questions and evidence in all fairness”. And then you discover the monster won’t go away anymore.

How do you get it out again? Revert to innocence. Stop believing that doubts are entitled to attention, to consideration, to investigation. Undo the trap of let’s-be-reasonable-about-this. Try believing the way you believed when you were 7 years old. (You did believe when you were 7, right?) If you can remember that belief, just hold on to it. Do not second-guess it. Do not hold it against the standards of “science” and “objectivity” and “reasonableness”. Those standards are not your friends. Your child-like belief is, if you can find it.
 
Roguish said:
Does this mean everything’s fine even if you doubt? Unfortunately not. It is important to recover your conscious faith, because only when faith becomes conscious can it effectively drive your Christian walk. So doubt isn’t without dangers. There is danger in it because the stronger doubts become, the harder it becomes to recover (or re-cognize) your obscured faith. And since doubt can occur only in a reflecting cognitive state, there is danger in this very state of mind.
Click to expand...
@LoganBryce Expanding on this paragraph from my previous post, a metaphore of clouds obscuring the sun is trite but quite apt. Skeptical thoughts are like dark clouds making it hard or impossible to seen the sun of faith. And if you haven’t seen the sun for a while, you may actually start believing that the sun doesn’t exist, or that it was destroyed by the clouds. You may even forget about the sun altogher, and start believing that faith is really the presence of some happy white clouds (i.e. the thought that God exists). In actuality though, the dark clouds did not touch the sun, ever. It’s entirely impossible. And true faith isn’t the driving out of dark clouds by white clouds. True faith starts (or is recovered) when the dark clouds part so that you can recognize the sun behind them again.
 
Last edited:
That is unfounded. Your question now becomes , does morality come from having faith or from somewhere else.

We cannot ever say an unbeliever logically is without morals. This reasoning is entirely wrong. And to say that ethical atheists are endowed with a subconscious belief in God is also a straw man,

I suggest you two start reading a few of the Churches documents. The ones that talk about other religions and non believers. `

As Christians we can be as charitable as we want with atheists. Or not. However, atheists are our brothers too, our sisters too, our neighbours. We are no better then a non believer. We all sin. We are called to love our neighbours, that includes a non believer. And not putting our
bias and
prejudice on
their actions or behaviours or beliefs.
 
LoganBryce said:
Christians evangelize out of love, we want what is best for our neighbor. Even if God was not real, an atheist evangelizing a Christian would do nothing but take their peace of mind away.
Click to expand...
Why should that be? I am a non-believer and I have as much peace of mind as anyone can have in this world. Why shouldn’t an atheist evangelise out of love? If, like those atheists more militant than Hawking, they believe one is harmed by believing an untruth, and that society is harmed by religion (I do not claim such views for myself or Professor Hawking) then what is unloving about seeking to convince others that they and the world are better off without it? How do you determine that they don’t seek what is best for their neighbours?
 
LoganBryce said:
I’m saying if an atheist has morals they are not 100% atheist.
Click to expand...
And if a Hindu is moral does that mean he has a subconscious belief in God?

You are denigrating not just people who have no belief but everyone who has a belief other than Christianity. You are saying in effect that you are right and everyone else who doesn’t think exactly as you do is wrong.

I assume, me as an atheist with no morals compass and you as a Christian with the benefit of your God given morality, you might agree to be my ethical guide whenever I have a problem that needs solving.

We can sort my problems out in this very thread so everyone can see the justification in your comments. Although there may be a problem in that other Christians may come up with different answers to my moral questions.

Could you let me know how I determine that.you are right and they are wrong?
 
Justified is a different word from defensible.
In an objective sense, of course anger at God is not justified on an ongoing basis. But anger is a human passion. Anger happens and an honest person admits it, and from that point moves on from it, hopefully.
I would not be too harsh with Stephen Hawking if he were angry at God.
Most anyone who has lived a long life and endured some suffering has been angry with God.
 
Last edited:
Roguish said:
Try believing the way you believed when you were 7 years old. (You did believe when you were 7, right?) If you can remember that belief, just hold on to it. Do not second-guess it. Do not hold it against the standards of “science” and “objectivity” and “reasonableness”. Those standards are not your friends. Your child-like belief is, if you can find it.
Click to expand...
I’ve got to be honest, that comes across as a terrible argument. You’re arguing that your God should not be held to the same standard of evidence that anything else should be held to. Why?

As an aside this argument also explains why the Catholic church is so involved in early years education, foundational beliefs reinforced by authority figures are incredibly hard to shake. It’s an ingenious and insidious system, a good way to hold power, and to avoid accountability.
 
Hindus use there god for there source of morals. Most atheists believe in science, which suggests evolution. Evolution happens based on survival of the fittest. A conscience cannot not be evolved under the laws of nature.
 
He mentions money and power in all of his books, most of his speeches. Read happiness in this life.
 
Pope Francis? He is known as the Bishop of the Slums in his home country. Amazing man.
 
Inquisitor85 said:
  • He created it and enjoys sending the people (like me) that he knows will end up there
  • He created it and is now powerless to destroy it
  • He doesn’t exist and it’s a complete myth.
Click to expand...
I have always heard that demons created hell as their dwelling place after leaving heaven. Not God. Those who die with their will opposed to God, he will not send to heaven, as that would actually be a worse punishment. Think of it like this: the goodness of God is a joy to those are friends with God, but a pain to those who hate him. The closer to his presence, the more they would see his goodness and hate it. He allows them leave him forever, and thus they enter hell.
 
Last edited:
I think if you listen to stories, many people are angry at God because they’ve been taught a mean, hateful God. There’s in my experience a pretty high correlation between negative experiences with religious people, especially when justified for religious reasons, and negativity towards faith.

The danger of religion is man likes to make god in his own imagine, to soothe his own conscience.
 
Yes. You asked me earlier where Pope Francis references wealth and power.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top