Why do some people prefer to be atheists?

[HerCrazierHalf]

Everyone is able to believe, just as some are able not to believe.

Some are just unwilling.

Having tried several times over the years that is not true.

One can lie and fake the appearance of belief (a closet atheist), but one can not sincerely believe what they consider false.

 

[tonyrey]

There are many men who believe in a god, pray to that god, follow their god’s rules, even rise up in the hierchary of their religion to be highly respected and titled…and still, with god, they “sink lower than the animals”.

And…there are many godly ways to “annihilate millions in one moment” as described in the Christian canon; floods, plagues, wars, etc.
Millions, gone in a moment, via god.
If it’s true that god made men and women in his image…then perhaps some are merely following by that example.

.

Correction: The Old Testament is not “the Christian canon” as Jesus pointed out very clearly.

As for sinking lower than the animals it is well known that “Corruptio optima pessima”!

 

[tonyrey]

The concept of sin doesn’t exist for an atheist. So we never sin. However, we are just as angry, jealous, miserly, small minded, cruel, lazy and bad mannered as any given Christian. If you have all the usual moral defects that plague each one of us then losing your faith in God just means that you class them as moral defects as opposed to sins.

Doesn’t really change much. Just the terminology.

I like your expression “all the usual moral defects that plague each one of us” which suggests that our vices incur their punishment and conversely our virtues bring their reward. Cosmic justice, Karma, Nemesis,“what comes around…”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Having tried several times over the years that is not true.

One can lie and fake the appearance of belief (a closet atheist), but one can not sincerely believe what they consider false.

Intellect is proud and sometimes arrogant to the point of dismissing anything it cannot understand. This is why many atheists are converted to Christ, or back to Christ. They realize their conviction in atheism was not itself sincere and well founded, not even by the proud poverty of intellect.

After all, as even many atheists will admit, reason cannot prove there is no God.

So why is it false to believe there is no God if reason is the ultimate judge?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

After all, as even many atheists will admit, reason cannot prove there is no God.

So why is it false to believe there is no God if reason is the ultimate judge?

A review: some atheist don’t hold the belief that there are no gods, but are not convince that there is at least one. The two positions are easily confused as being the same.

 

[Aloysium]

Having tried several times over the years that is not true.

One can lie and fake the appearance of belief (a closet atheist), but one can not sincerely believe what they consider false.

I’m wondering about what can be meant by “trying to believe”.
The way I see it, a belief system grows on faith, which reveals the nature of reality.

For example: The Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
This sounds totally absurd to many people, who see it as simply a wafer.
However, considering that many intelligent people, those who make it their business to study such things, many of them over many years, centuries and millenia now, believe this,
given that Jesus said this and emphasized the “physical” reality by using a word that means gnawing,
in view of the fact that I become ever more aware of what I don’t know, and
since the church, which to me has proven itself to be on track over and over again about things I had not been sure, has proclaimed this to be true,
considering all this, at some point not that long ago, I decided, “Why not? Suppose it is the actual body and blood of Jesus?”
There is no trying, there is a choice from which consequences follow.

I agrre with you that you would have remained an atheist, doing what atheists do, trying to create a truth, trying to create faith.
It cannot be done by one’s own efforts.
It requires prayer and surrender to God’s will as it has been revealed and interpreted.
Paradoxically, you cannot have faith until you have faith.
Or perhaps, you simply have to give up your faith in what Charlie calls “no-god”.
Do realize that you have surrendered your mind to that secular belief system, through which you view the world and other systems of understanding.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

After all, as even many atheists will admit, reason cannot prove there is no God.

So why is it false to believe there is no God if reason is the ultimate judge?

God as typically defined is nearly impossible to prove or disprove, hence faith.

I don’t believe in God. But I can’t say there no God because that requires knowledge about the universe and beyond that I do not possess.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

For example: The Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
This sounds totally absurd to many people, who see it as simply a wafer.

When I read the above I think a primary issue of why it might “[sound] totally absurd to many people” may be rooted in semantics. The interpretation of that statement to someone that finds it absurd may be different than the intended interpretation of someone that makes the assertion.

If I said “He took to flight in his car” one person could interpret “flight” as “flying” and think it’s absurd. Another might interpret it as “fleeing or escaping.” With these different interpretations both people could hold a compatible view of what happened while disagreeing with the statement.

If someone thinks that the Eucharist becoming the body and blood of Christ is absurd it might be worth taking a step back and seeing if there’s a shared interpretation of the phrase.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

God as typically defined is nearly impossible to prove or disprove, hence faith.

You may want to reconsider that?

It’s not nearly impossible to prove that God does not exist. It’s absolutely impossible.

Whereas the evidence for God is plausible even if not absolutely certain.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Strange indeed, but perhaps not so strange for** those who are not authentic Christians.**

And there may well be more of those than we suspect.

Everyone is able to believe, just as some are able not to believe.

What is meant by a non-authentic Christian? How might all be able to believe, though some not be authentic?

Some are just unwilling.

It is possible some are unwilling…equally possible is some are unable.

For it was in seeking to be closer to understanding God that I realized how utterly fabricated He appeared. This knowledge left me quite despondent.

So it is quite possible that I am unwilling to believe in such an apparently manufactured God, but equally plausible is that I am unable to do so without clear compromise.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

You may want to reconsider that?

It’s not nearly impossible to prove that God does not exist. It’s absolutely impossible.

Whereas the evidence for God is plausible even if not absolutely certain.

Plausible is much too low a standard for something with such implications.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Plausible is much too low a standard for something with such implications.

Absolute uncertainty is a really low standard for the implications of atheism.

Would you risk the fate of your possibly immortal soul on an absolute uncertainty?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What is meant by a non-authentic Christian?

One who fools himself that he is a Christian. Lots of people do it.

Apparently by your own admission you did it for a time.

 

[meltzerboy]

Absolute uncertainty is a really low standard for the implications of atheism.

Would you risk the fate of your possibly immortal soul on an absolute uncertainty?

Why does belief or non-belief in G-d have to become intertwined with the existence of a soul and the immortality of that soul? Yes, I realize it may do so in Christianity but not necessarily in all other religions. In fact, belief in G-d may also be divorced from religion altogether.

 

[zyzz]

It’s not nearly impossible to prove that God does not exist. It’s absolutely impossible.

Slow down, buddy. It all depends on HOW this “thingie” called God is defined. When you attempt to define God, you had better make sure that the “attributes” assigned to God are meaningful, and they are not mutually exclusive. If this “God” is like a “married bachelor”, then it cannot exist, because it is a logically self-contradictory entity.

And that is the fundamental problem with the Abrahamic God. Its attributes are partially nonsensical (omnipotent and omniscient) and partially mutually contradictory, (perfectly just and perfectly merciful). Not to mention to be a “frozen, static” entity (outside of time), which is also “physically active”.

Would you risk the fate of your possibly immortal soul on an absolute uncertainty?

You bet I would. First, there is no definition of this “soul”. Second there is no method to find out if one has this “soul” or not. And finally the “fate” of this soul is only an unsubstantiated declaration by someone. Why should anyone take your argument seriously?

 

[meltzerboy]

Slow down, buddy. It all depends on HOW this “thingie” called God is defined. When you attempt to define God, you had better make sure that the “attributes” assigned to God are meaningful, and they are not mutually exclusive. If this “God” is like a “married bachelor”, then it cannot exist, because it is a logically self-contradictory entity.

And that is the fundamental problem with the Abrahamic God. Its attributes are partially nonsensical (omnipotent and omniscient) and partially mutually contradictory, (perfectly just and perfectly merciful). Not to mention to be a “frozen, static” entity (outside of time), which is also “physically active”.

You bet I would. First, there is no definition of this “soul”. Second there is no method to find out if one has this “soul” or not. And finally the “fate” of this soul is only an unsubstantiated declaration by someone. Why should anyone take your argument seriously?

Perhaps this is why Judaism sometimes prefers to speak of G-d as what He is NOT rather than box Him into a definition.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Absolute uncertainty is a really low standard for the implications of atheism.

Would you risk the fate of your possibly immortal soul on an absolute uncertainty?

Yes, because I don’t believe your position holds great enough certainty.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

One who fools himself that he is a Christian. Lots of people do it.

Apparently by your own admission you did it for a time.

What do you mean precisely? How is one able to ‘fool themselves that they are a Christian?’ Was it not your position earlier that one is able to ‘fool themselves that they are an Atheist?’

Why would one wish to fool themselves in such a manner in either case?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Slow down, buddy. It all depends on HOW this “thingie” called God is defined. When you attempt to define God, you had better make sure that the “attributes” assigned to God are meaningful, and they are not mutually exclusive. If this “God” is like a “married bachelor”, then it cannot exist, because it is a logically self-contradictory entity.

And that is the fundamental problem with the Abrahamic God. Its attributes are partially nonsensical (omnipotent and omniscient) and partially mutually contradictory, (perfectly just and perfectly merciful). Not to mention to be a “frozen, static” entity (outside of time), which is also “physically active”.

You bet I would. First, there is no definition of this “soul”. Second there is no method to find out if one has this “soul” or not. And finally the “fate” of this soul is only an unsubstantiated declaration by someone. Why should anyone take your argument seriously?

Why should any Catholic in this forum take seriously any of your insults to our God?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes, because I don’t believe your position holds great enough certainty.

And yours does?

Ah yes, the infallible atheist!