Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[tonyrey]

You’ve pointed out that the concepts of liberty, freedom and fraternity are ‘worthy of respect regardless of time and space’. I concur with you. I’ve pointed out that a lot of other people concur with you. I’ve pointed out that even scripture would concur with you. And now you want to argue with the proposition?

Only you, Tony. Only you could manage that.

Brad, I’m not arguing with the proposition but pointing out that in a Godless universe there is no rational foundation for liberty, equality and fraternity. A consensus of opinion does not fulfil that requirement. That is why materialism is incoherent…

 

[Bradski]

Brad, I’m not arguing with the proposition but pointing out that in a Godless universe there is no rational foundation for liberty, equality and fraternity. A consensus of opinion does not fulfil that requirement. That is why materialism is incoherent…

So you think they are worthy and I think they are worthy. We both agree. But it seems to rankle with you that I can reach the same position as you without needing a belief in the divinity of Christ.

Never mind…

 

[OneSheep]

Romans 2:
[12] All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
[13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Scripture disagrees with you.

I think we are addressing two different topics in this part.

Soo… the topic of this thread has to do with “why?”, and I am saying that the question contains a false premise. When we use the word “justified” we are not talking about “why”, but “ought” and “what is our response/God’s response to sin”.

All men know the truth yet suppress it because they want to do evil.

If suppression of the truth is to be equated with knowingly and willingly rejecting God, then one could judge that someone else has K&WRG when they suppress the truth. However, if the person does not equate suppression of the truth with K&WRG, then in his own mind he is not K&WRG, even if I judge that he has. If he is unknowing, he is unknowing, and that is that. If he does not believe that God is equated with truth, even though we have told him a million times, then he is not K&WRG. Now, I may be compelled to blame him, and say “that is no excuse”, but that is beside the point, then we get into the territory of “ought”, when the topic of the thread falls under “is”.

I have daughters. They rage when they are not getting their way. That is not conscience, that is self-will. Conscience is the interior judge that tells them after they have raged that they ought not to have raged. They know that they ought not to rage, like when they’re told to clean their room or take the dogs out, but their anger comes from the belief that their time is their own, that they own every minute of a 24 hour day, and that when I ask them to take the 5 minutes to take out the dogs or the half hour to clean their room that their time for their own leisure is being “stolen” from them.

Yes, I agree. Lovely, aren’t they? Yes, they have their own rules, and we share many, like “my time is mine”. Nobody wants to sacrifice their time, unless their rulebook (i.e. “I should do my share” or Love compels them. Isn’t it nice when love, rather than guilt (from the conscience) compels them? “I am doing this because I like it when Mom and Dad have their need for order/cleanliness met.” Empathy plays a role in this ownership aspect.

Which has been my point, the conscience knows, but the will overrules. Why? Because the will is not dominated by the conscience or reason but by the passions, by base feelings and by sensual appetites.

I am in agreement with much of what you said there. The question is, what is the order of events? To me, we have the appetites, that is a given. The appetites do affect the mind; desire leads to blindness. Is this blindness willed? In my own experience, the answer is “no”. It may seem that I am purposefully rationalizing my own bad behavior, but it is desire itself that compels me to do such rationalizing. And, unless I am experienced and aware of the compulsion, the rationalization seems like reality itself!
'Surely, I will not die"

Their apparent penchant for misbehavior is not due to uninformed conscience, but to self-will. They know that they ought not misbehave. And this is easily discovered when you ask the child, “don’t you know that you shouldn’t have taken that toy?” Their answer is never “no” but “yes”.

Yes, we must address the question, “why does the child misbehave even though she knows she ought not?”. Their mind is telling them “you want the toy”. Another voice says “if you do this, you will get in trouble - if you get caught.” Much comes into play concerning why the child follows the rules in the first place. When we say “follow the rules, otherwise you get punished”, then the child will take special care not to be discovered, the desire for stuff is constant. Eventually, though, the child learns that it is not so much that punishment is important, but that theft is a violation, the child who experiences something being stolen from her knows the grief, the hurt, the loss. The child who cares about his playmates will not want them to experience the loss. The child takes ownership of the rule. This ownership is the truly informed conscience, in the way that I use the word. The child is connected to the law intrinsic. Before then, it is not incorporated in the child’s conscience, it is “what the adults want me to do”.

1776 "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary…

So, the conscience is formed through love, (empathy very important) and it is “deep within” and “discovered”. A child who obeys the law simply to avoid punishment has not reached the depths, has not discovered, and thus, is uninformed - in my reading. However, I am perfectly willing to accept a different read of the word “informed”.

 

[Aloysium]

So you think they are worthy and I think they are worthy. We both agree. But it seems to rankle with you that I can reach the same position as you without needing a belief in the divinity of Christ.

Never mind…

Each morning came, long before man was created and regardless of the fact that we did not know that the earth revolved around the sun.
You simply have to be rational and realize that there exists goodness. You don’t have to believe, but He does exist; these values reflect His goodness.

 

[OneSheep]

"Amandil:

Did I have any regard for the lives of bin Laden or Hitler?

Why don’t you reflect a bit on the nature of this question and what it may suggest in regards to whom you are directing it towards.

IOW, how would you respond if I asked you if you have any regard for the lives of bin Laden or Hitler?

I would say that before I forgave them, I had little to no regard for their lives. After I forgave them, I saw them as children of God, with great value, but regrettably blind and ignorant.

My question: If you did not have regard for the lives of bin Laden and Hitler, would it be because of sin?

Of course it would be because of sin. If all men are created in the image and likeness of God, then “all men” includes bin Laden and Hitler.

Okay, just as a clarification, because I am really with you on this, I think. Are you saying that when if I do not have regard for bin Laden or Hitler, (which I admitted) it is because of the “sin” within me? Note: I am not taking offense to this designation. This is a very important aspect, to me.

---

My quote:

… empathy is an important aspect of learning to know the feelings and needs of others, which develops the conscience in decision-making. For example, a person who has experienced what it is like to be ridiculed is less likely to ridicule someone else…

Or he may in fact be more likely to pay back in kind, ridicule for ridicule.

Or he may be so detached from his egotism that someone else’s ridicule simply has no effect on him.

In both cases, both the first(which is sinful), and the second(which is in fact holy and upright), neither response requires any explicit empathy for the person ridiculing them. No understanding of their feelings or what compels them to ridicule others.

Interesting. So, a person’s taking offense is the effect of “egotism”? In my view, taking offense is an activity of the conscience itself. A person has a rule within that says “do not ridicule someone”. When the rule is violated, anger/upset/resentment etc. is triggered, it is not willed. When you get angry about something, do you think to yourself first “I am going to get angry about this.”? In my view, it is the conscience that contains the “rulebook”, it is the conscience that automatically guides the triggers, and it is the conscience that compels us to want violations to be punished. Indeed, in my view it is the conscience itself that triggers self-condemnation (guilt) and condemnation of others! All of these aspects of the conscience are useful, natural, and gifts from God. If this is egotism, thank God for it. If such egotism enslaves us though, which it can, then forgiveness and love is the way to freedom. Condemnation of “egotism”, is well, continuation of the slavery. Do you agree?

I clarified my views on empathy’s role in my last post.

Empathy is not required for “agape” love, the love which God commands us to do.

Nor is empathy required to learn how to love others since love is directly related to the higher ontological good of the person themselves and not merely to the secondary aspects of love such as good feelings or “warm fuzzies”.

I don’t have a “resistance to empathy”, I simply know its proper place.

I am not understanding your use of “required”. Empathy is a human trait, a gift from God. Empathy helps develop the conscience, which I explained my view on my last post. My knowing that I should not do unto others what is hurtful involves empathy. I have to know “he will be hurt if I do that to him”. Or, “he will feel angry when I say that”. It is a matter of knowing a lot of common triggers. I could say to myself “he or she would be a lot more holy and upright if they did not react to stuff I do.”, but this is a way of rationalizing my own bad behaviors, is it not?

Empathy plays a role in the development of the conscience, and those who have inability to empathize do not internalize the rules as well. Feel free to comment where I talked about this in my last post.

The argument from sincerity again?

Psychological motives do not negate the objectively sinful nature of an act. Go back to the example of giving the starving man a huge meal because you feel sorry that he is hungry and he dies. Your empathy and compassion became an occasion of pride because instead of turning him over to someone who would have been more competent to treat him correctly you thought that nothing would due except that you treat him yourself.

Thus you would be culpable for his death, regardless of your good intentions. There are times that intentions need to be accused, because many times, especially in regards to sin, intentions are wrong.

Well, in that case there was nothing wrong with his intentions, or his empathy, in my view. The problem was that he was simply ignorant as to what was helpful.

Empathy can also play a role in greater sin, especially when it violates right reason.

People claim to be empathetic with regards to euthanasia, abortion, or drug and alcohol abuse.

The feeling of empathy cannot be superior to objective truth.

There is nothing wrong with the empathy in any of those cases. The problem, again, is ignorance about what to do when encountering those problems, as above. When a person says “that guy is really suffering because he needs a drink” we can empathize with the suffering, but we can also empathize with the bigger picture, the continuation of suffering in the Big Picture, the slavery of addiction. The informed empathetic response would not involve giving the man a drink, generally speaking.

Empathy is: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy

You are addressing what people do with that empathy, and I share your concerns on that matter.

 

[simpleas]

From the CCC :

*The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart. *

*Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law. *

A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed

*This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. *

So a person who is lazy, doesn’t take the time to find out what is true and good, also blinded by a habit of sin is still to blame for their sin. The lazy part I would almost agree with, but if a person through habit is blinded by sin, they are stuck in a way,so couldn’t be truely k&w rejecting God. They can’t see that what they do is in fact against Gods will, because of habit.

 

[tonyrey]

Brad, I’m not arguing with the proposition but pointing out that in a Godless universe there is no rational foundation

It doesn’t bother me in the slightest because it’s not a matter of feeling but logic. If we have no Father there is **no reason **why we should regard everyone as our brothers and sisters (with the same right to liberty and equality). In a purposeless universe **we are related solely by an accident of birth **and have no obligations to anyone whatsoever - including ourselves…

 

[Amandil]

OneSheep:

If he is unknowing, he is unknowing, and that is that. If he does not believe that God is equated with truth, even though we have told him a million times, then he is not K&WRG.

All you’re doing here is appealing to feigned ignorance again.

I’ll reiterate again:

1. All men have sufficient knowledge of God to be culpable before him.
2. All men know the true imperative regarding morality and natural law, the good that ought to be done and the evil that ought to be avoided.

This refutes your above example. Self deception is no more of an excuse than feigned ignorance.

OneSheep:

Yes, they have their own rules, and we share many, like “my time is mine”. Nobody wants to sacrifice their time, unless their rulebook (i.e. “I should do my share” or Love compels them. Isn’t it nice when love, rather than guilt (from the conscience) compels them?

You really don’t see the pride and egocentrism in the idea that my time is mine! do you?

The fact is that we do not own our time. We do not own our bodies. We do not really “own” anything. Something is really only “mine” as it stands in a relationship to us according to what is good.

Those who either do not or won’t “sacrifice” their time are acting contrary to love. And guilt is profitable when it leads someone to humility and is also profitable when it exposes pride and self-worship.

OneSheep:

The question is, what is the order of events?

It doesn’t matter the order of events. Right reason and good will dictates that you stop and order them, examine everything, and then choose the good.

Appetites blind us because we do not stop to control them according to reason. ** If the will refuses to go by reason but only the appetites then, yes, the blindness is willed. You chose to go by the appetites alone. **

OneSheep:

So, the conscience is formed through love, (empathy very important) and it is “deep within” and “discovered”. A child who obeys the law simply to avoid punishment has not reached the depths, has not discovered, and thus, is uninformed - in my reading. However, I am perfectly willing to accept a different read of the word “informed”. /quote

Here’s the rub, people who reject God are, no matter what their state bodily is, spiritual infants. So you have to get out of your mind the idea of spiritual maturity. They may even be perhaps very advanced intellectually, but they have not even made the mental connections which lead beyond the mere compartmentalization of the various knowledge they possess to integrate it into a conscious whole.

In that respect, these “children” don’t need to reach the “spiritual depths” to know the imperative that sin is sin and that justice requires punishment for sin. Therefore while the obedience of faith through love is the goal, obedience to the law is a sufficient enough starting point.

You don’t expect infants to eat steak, you feed them on milk and food more appropriate to their development. But they must eat or starve. And to reject God is to starve yourself.

I’ll address the rest later.

 

[Bradski]

It doesn’t bother me in the slightest because it’s not a matter of feeling but logic. If we have no Father there is **no reason **why we should regard everyone as our brothers and sisters (with the same right to liberty and equality). In a purposeless universe **we are related solely by an accident of birth **and have no obligations to anyone whatsoever - including ourselves…

Then it’s lucky for everyone who knows you that you’re a Christian.

 

[Amandil]

Then it’s lucky for everyone who knows you that you’re a Christian.

The difference between myself and Tony when compared to you and atheism in general is that we have made the connections to follow atheism to it’s logical conclusions; where you, as of yet, apparently have not.

 

[Bradski]

The difference between myself and Tony when compared to you and atheism in general is that we have made the connections to follow atheism to it’s logical conclusions; where you, as of yet, apparently have not.

I think Tony is implying that if there were no God, there would be no reason to believe that liberty, freedom and fraternity have any real meaning. Would you still believe in them if there were no God?

If yes, then you will understand my position a little better. If no, then again, it’s lucky you are a Christian.

 

[Amandil]

I think Tony is implying that if there were no God, there would be no reason to believe that liberty, freedom and fraternity have any real meaning.

That’s exactly what he’s saying, and he’s correct.

Would you still believe in them if there were no God?

If by “would you still believe in them” I would necessarily redefine them according to my subjective preferences and opinions so as to be useful to achieve what I want, the yeah, I would “believe” in them.

If yes, then you will understand my position a little better.

I understand your position completely. I’m saying that you’re holding yourself back from any true atheistic sense of the word “freedom”. Why hold yourself back by backwards societal constructs such as “morality” or even such absurd notions like “fraternity” or “equality” which are concepts based upon religious principles anyway?

You’re an atheist, an autonomous individual, why do you need anyone? Unless they have something you desire. Then once you have it, why bother with them?

Equality? What is equality? What is more important than what you want at any given moment? Nothing. Therefore what is it to you if someone else supposedly wants or needs something from you? Nothing.

Fraternity? What fraternity is there between you and people who are so dim as to believe in an imaginary “sky daddy”? What’s worse, they refuse to see reason and just accept the fact that their sky daddy doesn’t exist. They’re useless fleshbags, a drain on society with their crying about “love” and “morality” which their sky daddy tells them is “good”.

Ridiculous.

…I’m saying that you lack the courage to really stand by the term “atheist” and all that it entails. To be an atheist literally means that nothing is true, and that everything is permitted(FYI: this conclusion existed before the Assassin’s Creed game). You claim to be an atheist, but you follow it in a superficial sense at best.

Which to me is evidence enough that at least your atheism is not even a real belief, only a superficial one.

 

[Bradski]

Equality? What is equality? What is more important than what you want at any given moment? Nothing. Therefore what is it to you if someone else supposedly wants or needs something from you? Nothing.

Fraternity? What fraternity is there between you and people who are so dim as to believe in an imaginary “sky daddy”? What’s worse, they refuse to see reason and just accept the fact that their sky daddy doesn’t exist. They’re useless fleshbags, a drain on society with their crying about “love” and “morality” which their sky daddy tells them is “good”.

Hey, hang on…you said that you were an atheist once. So if you really believe what you just wrote, then you would have ‘necessarily redefined those concepts according to your subjective preferences and opinions so as to be useful to achieve what you wanted’.

If you did, then all us fleshbags should thank our lucky stars that you became a Christian. You can’t have been a very nice person to know. But if, on the other hand, you didn’t, then what makes you think that I would? Are you suggesting that somehow you are a better person because even though at that point you had no belief you could rise above it all whilst all the great unwashed couldn’t?

 

[Amandil]

Hey, hang on…you said that you were an atheist once. So if you really believe what you just wrote, then you would have ‘necessarily redefined those concepts according to your subjective preferences and opinions so as to be useful to achieve what you wanted’.

If you did, then all us fleshbags should thank our lucky stars that you became a Christian. You can’t have been a very nice person to know.

Nice? What does being “nice” have to do with being an atheist? Either something is true or something isn’t.

And shouldn’t what we believe to be true make an impact on how we live?

If it doesn’t, what’s the point of believing it?

Are you suggesting that somehow you are a better person because even though at that point you had no belief you could rise above it all whilst all the great unwashed couldn’t?

Not at all. I’m suggesting that you live by what you profess to believe. Really live it.

I’m maintaining that you profess to be an atheist, you hypothesize about God not existing, but you really haven’t done the experiment and lived as if God doesn’t exist.

Instead you claim that God doesn’t exist, and live as if He does(somewhat).

Perhaps you’re simply hedging your bets, I don’t know.

But you’re not doing a good job of either convincing me that God doesn’t exist OR convincing me that you’re an atheist(in practice), but rather only nominally.

 

[Bradski]

I’m suggesting that you live by what you profess to believe. Really live it.

There’s me thinking I was…

But you didn’t answer the question. Were you the type of person you described earlier when you were an atheist? Or were you somehow different to the rest of us unbelievers at that time?

 

[Amandil]

There’s me thinking I was…

Hardly.

Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Engels, Mao, Pol Pot, Sanger. They lived their atheism.

As horrible as they were, at least they lived their principles.

But you didn’t answer the question

I did so.

Were you the type of person you described earlier when you were an atheist?

So are you asking so as to feel better about yourself as a nominal atheist?

 

[Bradski]

I did so.

Answer the question? I didn’t see it.

So to confirm: You seem to think that if you’re an atheist, you have no need to…'hold yourself back by backwards societal constructs such as “morality” or even such absurd notions like “fraternity” or “equality” .

So may I ask again:

Were you the type of person you described earlier when you were an atheist? Or were you somehow different to the rest of us unbelievers at that time?

 

[Amandil]

So may I ask again:

Were you the type of person you described earlier when you were an atheist? Or were you somehow different to the rest of us unbelievers at that time?

So I ask again:

Are you asking just to feel better about yourself as a nominal atheist?

 

[tonyrey]

*It doesn’t bother me in the slightest because it’s not a matter of feeling but logic. If we have no Father there is **no reason ***

You’re dead right! They know my faith is coherent and not based on feeling, convenience or wishful thinking. That doesn’t mean materialists are insincere, just illogical! If only matter exists nothing matters…

 

[tonyrey]

I think Tony is implying that if there were no God, there would be no reason to believe that liberty, freedom and fraternity have any real meaning. Would you still believe in them if there were no God?

There is nothing to stop you believing except cold logic based on a false assumption. Fortunately most people know intuitively that life isn’t just an accident.