"Rejecting" God

[davidv]

No, I’d believe in the Christian God if there was any sort of half-decent evidence that such a being existed. Wanting to believe in him is another matter. For that, a good place to start would be a Creator of the Universe that didn’t make my everlasting salvation contingent on my believing in him, or loving him without question.

I’m not a mod, but I think you’re safe. Though, I confess, in regards to threads that talk about atheism, on a board where atheists are free to post their thoughts, I never really know where the line starts and where it ends.

Based on what I have observed, your definition of “half-decent evidence” depends on what is presented. It always means that whatever is presented, is less than half-decent.
This an highly irrational argument.

 

[ASimon]

Based on what I have observed, your definition of “half-decent evidence” depends on what is presented. It always means that whatever is presented, is less than half-decent.
This an highly irrational argument.

Not at all. Carl Sagan framed it with an analogy of the dragon in his garage. We have Santa Claus. We have the Easter Bunny. We have unicorns. We have fairies. We have all manner of imaginary creatures, to say nothing of the legions of historical Gods formerly worshiped, but whom now reside in the dustbin of history. I apply the same standards of evidence for the existence of the Christian God as I do for all of the aforementioned. You, on the other hand, apply a completely different standard of evidence to the Christian God then you do for all the others. For you, it’s nothing but a case of Special Pleading 101.

 

[snarflemike]

No, I’d believe in the Christian God if there was any sort of half-decent evidence that such a being existed. Wanting to believe in him is another matter. For that, a good place to start would be a Creator of the Universe that didn’t make my everlasting salvation contingent on my believing in him, or loving him without question.

So you want to spend eternity with a being whom you don’t love? That is the very definition of hell. With God it’s all or nothing. You can’t be in the presence of God and feel lukewarm. It’ll be either love or hate, and you get to choose. What could be more reasonable, more fair than that?

As for evidence, when I was an atheist I didn’t see any evidence for God. Now I see evidence for him everywhere. Same reality, just different eyes.

 

[snarflemike]

Not at all. Carl Sagan framed it with an analogy of the dragon in his garage. We have Santa Claus. We have the Easter Bunny. We have unicorns. We have fairies. We have all manner of imaginary creatures, to say nothing of the legions of historical Gods formerly worshiped, but whom now reside in the dustbin of history. I apply the same standards of evidence for the existence of the Christian God as I do for all of the aforementioned. You, on the other hand, apply a completely different standard of evidence to the Christian God then you do for all the others. For you, it’s nothing but a case of Special Pleading 101.

So you really believe that Aquinas’ 5 proofs for the existence of God also apply to the Easter Bunny? There is serious atheism and then there is what I would call dorm-room atheism. References to Easter Bunnies and unicorns falls into the latter camp, IMO.

 

[Uriah_Betrayed]

So you really believe that Aquinas’ 5 proofs for the existence of God also apply to the Easter Bunny? There is serious atheism and then there is what I would call dorm-room atheism. References to Easter Bunnies and unicorns falls into the latter camp, IMO.

Having seen this arguement go back and forth a million times with nothing to gain but more mockery from athiests can I ask why those don’t count? Do the historic gods that pagans believed in but no one believes in anymore placed in the same level as the unicorn example and if so why?

 

[ASimon]

So you want to spend eternity with a being whom you don’t love? That is the very definition of hell. With God it’s all or nothing. You can’t be in the presence of God and feel lukewarm. It’ll be either love or hate, and you get to choose. What could be more reasonable, more fair than that?

In my view, anything but that would be more reasonable and fair. And I appeal again to standards that all sane, morally normal people apply to every other being they take under consideration. One would never consider it reasonable or fair to express unconditional love for someone who insists on this expression from you, regardless of what they’ve ever done and ever will do. At its best, it’s simple arrogance and presumptuousness. “You can’t be in the presence of God and feel lukewarm.” Well, why not? “Because God, in all his eternal reasonableness and fairness, insists that you cannot.”

I also wouldn’t be the first person to point out just how odd it is that the Creator of the Universe would go so out of his way to insist that the creatures he created to inhabit this insignificant speck of carbon, spend their lives loving and worshiping him, on the threat of pain of eternal suffering. Why is this amoral activity of God-worship given such primacy in our lives? Couldn’t we find reasons to care for and show solidarity for one another without referring all of our praise upward to our Creator? Speaking from experience, I think I manage it just fine. And incidentally, my idea of an eternity well-spent would have nothing to do with such worship, either.

As for evidence, when I was an atheist I didn’t see any evidence for God. Now I see evidence for him everywhere. Same reality, just different eyes.

No. Same reality - just different standards for what makes evidence compelling.