Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[Bradski]

So I ask again:

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

Nah. I’m good, thanks. I don’t think whatever you did in your past life is likely to make me feel all warm and gooey either way. But if you are so certain that atheists are as you described earlier I’m going to have to ask my question yet 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?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

One of the unfortunate circumstances of atheism is that it leaves one adrift, both from God and from our fellow man. Whereas Christianity emphasizes our obligations to God, to ourselves, and to others, atheism leaves all obligations for the person to decide their individual merits. We can choose to accept obligations, or we can choose to deny them, as we are inclined, because atheism offers no guide to the perplexed. Yes, it offers reason, but we have no obligation to accept reason, and we are free to deny reason altogether should we have the urge.

 

[Amandil]

Bradski220975:

Nah. I’m good, I don’t think whatever you did in your past life is likely to make me feel all warm and gooey either way. But if you are so certain that atheists are as you described earlier I’m going to have to ask my question yet 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?

I neve said that I was “so certain that atheists as I described earlier.”

Many certainly aren’t, which as I explained is another weakness of the atheist system. Their atheism, like yours, is superficial and nominalist at best.

That said, I see no reason to answer your question because I can’t see that it satisfies any purpose other than your own curiosity.

I was what I waa because I actually lived atheism, not just because I parroted atheist talking points against theists.

 

[Bradski]

This is becoming a little weird. Let’s just check out what you believed atheism to entail:

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.

Now there’s no uncertainty there about atheism, is there. Need no-one, take what you want, equality means nothing, morality is worthless. It went on a bit more, but we get the picture. So I thought it might be a good question, as you seem to think that this is what being an atheist means, if you felt the same way when you were an atheist.

This would not be, as you suggest, to satisfy idle curiosity, but to find out if you were that type of person. If you weren’t, then I would like to know how you managed to be so different to what you think I am now.

I’ve asked the question at least three times and you are still refusing to answer. Although we do have some clarification…

Many certainly aren’t…

That’s much better. Of course many certainly aren’t. The vast majority aren’t. Just like the vast majority of Christians are not fundamentalist morons. The sort of sweeping fatuous remarks you made are not so much made in ignorance but perhaps maybe in hope: I am a Christian and I therefore know what morality is, he is an atheist so surely he cannot! But at least it’s good that you recognise that what you said is not to be taken as a blanket criticism of atheism per se.

But, and this is the bit I don’t get…

…which as I explained is another weakness of the atheist system. Their atheism, like yours, is superficial and nominalist at best.

So the ones that have a sense of morality and who hold equality to be a worthy concept, their atheism is ‘superficial and nominalist’. So now it seems we we have two options.

Either, when you were an atheist, you held morality and concepts such as equality in disdain (as you describe atheism above). In which case you and I are definitely different and I’m glad you became a Christian (for everyone’s sake).

Or, you felt that morality and concepts such as equality were worthy and you were being superficial. You weren’t really an atheist after all. In which case you and I are definitely different and I’m glad you became a Christian (for your sake).

Either way, you really have a very odd understanding of atheism. So which was it?

 

[Amandil]

Now there’s no uncertainty there about atheism, is there. Need no-one, take what you want, equality means nothing, morality is worthless. It went on a bit more, but we get the picture. So I thought it might be a good question, as you seem to think that this is what being an atheist means, if you felt the same way when you were an atheist.

The process of thinking is distinct from feeling. You don’t feel thoughts, you think thoughts.

Bradski:

That’s much better. Of course many certainly aren’t. The vast majority aren’t. Just like the vast majority of Christians are not fundamentalist morons.

Your problem is that Christianity as a whole doesn’t logically produce “fundamentalist morons”. Fundamentalist morons are the product of the abuse of Christianity.

Bradski:

The sort of sweeping fatuous remarks you made are not so much made in ignorance but perhaps maybe in hope: I am a Christian and I therefore know what morality is, he is an atheist so surely he cannot! But at least it’s good that you recognise that what you said is not to be taken as a blanket criticism of atheism per se.

Then you missed the point. I know/knew real atheists. And the last thing that they would ever do is do something as “fatuous”(is that supposed to make you appear more intelligent?) as to bother talking to anyone as infantile as theists. The fact that you’re even on here arguing with theists shows me that your atheism is at best nothing serious.

As far as your “fatuous” statement: “he is an atheist so surely he cannot!”, you again demonstrate how you cannot make those grey matter connections to see what is right in front of you.

I never said that atheists cannot be moral. I said that atheists, real atheists, find the notion of morality absurd. Morality is a religious concept and is therefore irrelevant. If anything is to be considered “moral” its only in a purely subjective/pragmatic sense.

So it was precisely what it was.

Bradski:

But, and this is the bit I don’t get…

Again another demonstration of the lack of grey matter connections.

Bradski:

So the ones that have a sense of morality and who hold equality to be a worthy concept, their atheism is ‘superficial and nominalist’. So now it seems we we have two options.

Either, when you were an atheist, you held morality and concepts such as equality in disdain (as you describe atheism above). In which case you and I are definitely different and I’m glad you became a Christian (for everyone’s sake).

Or, you felt that morality and concepts such as equality were worthy and you were being superficial. You weren’t really an atheist after all. In which case you and I are definitely different and I’m glad you became a Christian (for your sake).

Either way, you really have a very odd understanding of atheism. So which was it?

You again don’t apparently don’t understand what a false dichotomy is.

Here’s a better experiment. You, and atheist, explain to me, another atheist, why I should bother with any such concepts as “equality” at all.

The problem is that you are clearly confusing “disdain” for indifference. To have disdain about something you have to at least care about it, either positively or negatively.

I’ll await your explanation.

 

[Bradski]

The fact that you’re even on here arguing with theists shows me that your atheism is at best nothing serious.

So any atheist who posts on a Christian forum is not serious about the fact that they don’t believe in gods? Maybe you can expand on this, because there doesn’t appear to be any connection.

I never said that atheists cannot be moral.

You certainly implied as such.

Why hold yourself back by backwards societal constructs such as “morality”…

That doesn’t sound like you were saying that atheists are moral. Rather that they can ignore it. Maybe ‘amoral’ would be a better term.

I said that atheists, real atheists…

…as opposed to those make-believe atheists, the ones who really do believe in God…

…find the notion of morality absurd.

So which sort were you? Were you a real atheist who thought morality absurd or a pretend one who didn’t?

You, and atheist, explain to me, another atheist, why I should bother with any such concepts as “equality” at all.

Hey, Amandil, grab a beer and listen up. I’ve got something to explain to you.

There’s this concept called ‘equality’. It means that we should treat people with equal regard whatever their race, colour, gender, age, nationality (and all other inherent descriptions of what makes us human). This is a basic human right. It crosses many religions and many secular definitions of the rights of people in general.

It means that we must not treat people as not being as worthy as ourselves simply because of their race, colour, gender, religion etc. That has happened before and it didn’t turn out too well. It’s one of the basic foundations that is required for a peaceful society.

Make sense? Good. Now pass me a beer will you?

Now I’ve been meaning to ask you. As one atheist to another. Which sort are you? Are you a real atheist who thinks morality absurd or a pretend one who doesn’t?

Any chance of an answer this time…?

 

[Amandil]

So any atheist who posts on a Christian forum is not serious about the fact that they don’t believe in gods? Maybe you can expand on this, because there doesn’t appear to be any connection.

It has to do with lack of convictions.

From the perspective of an atheist, how intelligent is it to argue about the existence of the easter bunny or the tooth fairy?

What does that say about the atheist who engages in such a discussion?

You certainly implied as such.

Are distinctions simply not in your realm of “concepts”?

That doesn’t sound like you were saying that atheists are moral. Rather that they can ignore it. Maybe ‘amoral’ would be a better term.

“Amoral” necessarily implies objective and absolute moral norms.

Surely you’re not such as to believe in such an absurd notion.

…as opposed to those make-believe atheists, the ones who really do believe in God…

You really don’t cement your credibility by continually putting words in my mouth.

There’s a difference between “make-believe” and superficial. I never said that you weren’t “sincere” in your own way(just as sincere as a teenager going through an “emo” phase), I simply insist that you wear your atheism like a fashion statement or a fad. It’s the “in” thing now to be an atheist, just like smoking and tattoos used to be the “in” thing.

For whatever reason, you seem to hold yourself back from living a truly atheistic life. That either says something about you, or about atheism, or maybe even both. That is my point.

So which sort were you? Were you a real atheist who thought morality absurd or a pretend one who didn’t?

What do you think?

Hey, Amandil, grab a beer and listen up. I’ve got something to explain to you.

There’s this concept called ‘equality’. It means that we should treat people with equal regard whatever their race, colour, gender, age, nationality (and all other inherent descriptions of what makes us human).

Why? Why should I treat anyone equally to me? What does their race, color, gender, age, nationality, have if anything to do with me?

This is a basic human right. It crosses many religions and many secular definitions of the rights of people in general.

Why is it a “basic human right”? What does that even mean? Why should I even care about the rights of others?

It means that we must not treat people as not being as worthy as ourselves simply because of their race, colour, gender, religion etc.

You haven’t even explained why anyone is as “worthy” as me. As far as I’m concerned, no one is more “worthy” than me, no one is more important than me.

All “equality” seems to do is highlight is differences between people anyway. You really want to foster “equality”(whatever that means to you), how about you stop talking about “equality”?

As for me, I could really care less.

That has happened before and it didn’t turn out too well. It’s one of the basic foundations that is required for a peaceful society.

Why should I care about society?

Now I’ve been meaning to ask you. As one atheist to another. Which sort are you? Are you a real atheist who thinks morality absurd or a pretend one who doesn’t?

Any chance of an answer this time…?

How about you; are you an atheist who follows religious principles of morality or are you an atheist who instead liberates himself from religious principles or morality?

 

[Bradski]

From the perspective of an atheist, how intelligent is it to argue about the existence of the easter bunny or the tooth fairy?

You’re implying that I’m here arguing about the existence of God. I don’t have a need to argue about something I don’t believe exists, so you won’t me posting anything in that regard.

As regards the Easter Bunny, I’m pretty certain that if billions of people around the planet believed in him (maybe Him?) and their beliefs led to situations that impacted on me in some way, then I’d spend a reasonable amount of time discussing their faith in the bunny and how it relates to what I’d consider to be matters that didn’t require a bunny-belief.

I simply insist that you wear your atheism like a fashion statement or a fad. It’s the “in” thing now to be an atheist, just like smoking and tattoos used to be the “in” thing.

OK, let’s call this Atheism-Lite, shall we?

Why should I care about society?

You’re part of it. Do you not have empathy for your fellow man? And if you want to be treated equally, then you should treat others the same. You don’t have to. And it’s not like there’s some reward for doing the right things or some punishment for not doing so (although from my time spend discussing Christian matters on forums like this, some people do actually believe that).

How about you; are you an atheist who follows religious principles of morality or are you an atheist who instead liberates himself from religious principles or morality?

You really don’t want to answer the question, do you. I hope that you appreciate that I do my best to answer anything that you ask of me. In this case, there is religious morality and what you might class as secular morality. There is a huge overlap in many areas, so what I understand to be moral is exactly the same as you. Some aspects of religious morality I discount. They generally have to do with sex (no surprise there) and might impact on me personally. Otherwise I’d simply ignore them.

Now, having answered yet another of your questions, maybe you will eventually answer mine.

Were you previously what has been described above as Atheist-Lite, who believed in morality but just said you were an atheist because it was the done thing…or…were you what you consider to be a True Atheist who found the concept of morality absurd?

 

[Amandil]

It is duly noted that you avoided answering several of my questions.

That said:

You’re implying that I’m here arguing about the existence of God. I don’t have a need to argue about something I don’t believe exists, so you won’t me posting anything in that regard.

Then you are apparently a glutton for punishment and/or enjoy exercises in futility.

Does not bode well for your position.

As regards the Easter Bunny, I’m pretty certain that if billions of people around the planet believed in him (maybe Him?) and their beliefs led to situations that impacted on me in some way, then I’d spend a reasonable amount of time discussing their faith in the bunny and how it relates to what I’d consider to be matters that didn’t require a bunny-belief.

Why bother? Surely someone so stupid as to believe in the easter bunny cannot possibly be reasoned with. Surely you can see that this is an utter waste of precious time and energy?

OK, let’s call this Atheism-Lite, shall we?

I’d have a more colorful description.

You’re part of it.

Why should I care? Nobody asked me.

Do you not have empathy for your fellow man?

That’s quaint: sentiment.

And if you want to be treated equally, then you should treat others the same.

This is a bad joke. People can try to “treat” me however they like, I really don’t care. If they’re useful, I guess I’ll suffer them for however long I can get use out of them. Once I’m done with them, so what?

As far as I see it(as an atheist), the only thing “equal” about people is that they are a means to an end.

You don’t have to. And it’s not like there’s some reward for doing the right things or some punishment for not doing so (although from my time spend discussing Christian matters on forums like this, some people do actually believe that).

Its cute that you mention “the right things”. What are those again, exactly? And why are they “right”?

You really don’t want to answer the question, do you. I hope that you appreciate that I do my best to answer anything that you ask of me.

Yes I did.

And no you don’t “do your best” because just in the previous post I asked you several questions which you utterly ignored; yet you’re still hung up on some absurd subjective answer based upon an even more absurd false dichotomy that you posed as a rhetorical question.

I don’t answer rhetorical questions, especially when they assume fallacious reasoning.

In this case, there is religious morality and what you might class as secular morality. There is a huge overlap in many areas, so what I understand to be moral is exactly the same as you. Some aspects of religious morality I discount. They generally have to do with sex (no surprise there) and might impact on me personally. Otherwise I’d simply ignore them.

So, in other words, you lock yourself into your own moral prison. And how is this any different than any other religion?

Were you previously what has been described above as Atheist-Lite, who believed in morality but just said you were an atheist because it was the done thing…or…were you what you consider to be a True Atheist who found the concept of morality absurd?

Of course the latter.

And as you have just shown your “atheism” is hardly distinguishable from any notion of “religion” in general. It’s at best shoddy and mediocre. Overrun with sentiment and other irrational absurdities.

 

[Bradski]

Of course the latter.

Yes! We got another one answered. Maybe I should have taken up dentistry. This is like pulling teeth.

At very long last we have discovered that you were for a time, a True Atheist. Which includes, but is not limited to what you have described:

People can try to “treat” me however they like, I really don’t care. If they’re useful, I guess I’ll suffer them for however long I can get use out of them. Once I’m done with them, so what? As far as I see it(as an atheist), the only thing “equal” about people is that they are a means to an end.

As I said, it’s lucky you became a Christian. Because at that time you seemed to have no empathy, no moral compass. It appears that you were not a man that you would now describe as a good person. In fact it appears that you were the very person that you would now denigrate. I’d certainly do my best to avoid you at that time.

So as I said, lucky for you, your friends and your family, that you found some way to become a better person. And I sincerely hope you don’t lose your faith.

I don’t answer rhetorical questions, especially when they assume fallacious reasoning.

So if I asked you if you’d answer a rhetorical question, how would you answer?

 

[tonyrey]

Now there’s no uncertainty there about atheism, is there.

Do you really believe atheists are infallible? :ehh:

 

[Amandil]

As I said, it’s lucky you became a Christian. Because at that time you seemed to have no empathy, no moral compass. It appears that you were not a man that you would now describe as a good person. In fact it appears that you were the very person that you would now denigrate. I’d certainly do my best to avoid you at that time.

So as I said, lucky for you, your friends and your family, that you found some way to become a better person.

As I knew, the only reason why you asked was because you think that you have the right to stand in judgment of what “kind” of person I was as an atheist.

It’s a remarkable double standard for someone who denies absolute and objective morality but rather makes up his own to judge others on their “moral compass” or lack of “empathy”.

Consistency is apparently not a part of your vocabulary.

 

[Bradski]

Do you really believe atheists are infallible? :ehh:

It meant that Amandil had no uncertainty about atheism. Pay attention, Tony.

 

[Bradski]

As I knew, the only reason why you asked was because you think that you have the right to stand in judgment of what “kind” of person I was as an atheist.

Bear in mind that you yourself described the ‘kind’ of person you were. What type of person that was. I’ve been spending an inordinate amount of time getting you to admit to it.

And you have spent not an inconsiderable amount of time judging me on what kind of person I am simply because I describe myself as an atheist. If it wasn’t such an overused and trite cliche I might mention something about pots and kettles.

That person that you say you were we both agree is not someone we should emulate. There is something seriously lacking in their makeup. Maybe you realised that and therefore became a Christian. Maybe you thought that was the only way to become a ‘good person’.

It isn’t required for a lot of people, but if it was for you, then it was a good thing. Just don’t lose that faith. We don’t want Mr. Hyde making another appearance.

 

[Amandil]

Bear in mind that you yourself described the type of atheist you were. What type of person that was. I’ve been spending an inordinate amount of time getting you to admit to it.

And you have spent not an inconsiderable amount of time judging me on what kind of person I am simply because I describe myself as an atheist. If it wasn’t such an overused and trite cliche I might mention something about pots and kettles.

There is a huge difference between judging YOU as a person and judging how well or how consistently you follow what you profess to stand by.

The only thing that you have been consistent on avoiding my quesrions while mocking and gernerally being dishonest claiming that I have not answered yours, and misrepresenting just about every thing I have said. I don’t need to say anything about that, it speaks for itself.

From a Christian perspective, it’s easy to point out the inconsistency of your “moral compass”, its subjective and relative. **Yet you apparently think that you possess the right to be discriminatory even towards other atheists who have their own subjective and relative “morality” because it differs from your “moral compass”. **

That is the definition of irrational.

Bradski:

That person that you say you were we both agree is not someone we should emulate.

Which again doesn’t bode well for the atheist system. The fact that you’re appalled by the data from my performed experiment with atheism at least ought to compel you to reexamine your hypothesis or preform your own experiment, not just merely stand by an unproven theory.

No God means no God. That necessarily means that anything goes. Unlock yourself from your self-imposed moral prison and live your beliefs. Make yourself an absolute.

Otherwise your words are just empty platitudes.

Bradski:

There is something seriously lacking in their makeup. Maybe you realised that and therefore became a Christian. Maybe you thought that was the only way to become a ‘good person’.

Had nothing to do with it. Being a “good person” being again at the time utterly subjective and relative.

Bradski:

It isn’t required for a lot of people, but if it was for you, then it was a good thing. Just don’t lose that faith. We don’t want Mr. Hyde making another appearance.

Another self-contradictory assumption, truth is “what works for you”.

It’s rather clear that you really haven’t considered much of anything in regards to the logical consequences of your beliefs.

Not surprised really.

 

[Bradski]

The fact that you’re appalled by the data from my performed experiment with atheism at least ought to compel you to reexamine your hypothesis or preform your own experiment…

Data from your performed experiment? I’m not sure there’s any sensible response possible. Thanks for playing…

 

[Amandil]

Data from your performed experiment? I’m not sure there’s any sensible response possible. Thanks for playing…

As I said.

 

[tonyrey]

It meant that Amandil had no uncertainty about atheism. Pay attention, Tony.

It also reflects your view that morality has a rational basis in a Godless universe. Do you agree?

 

[Amandil]

It also reflects your view that morality has a rational basis in a Godless universe. Do you agree?

Morality has no rational basis in a godless universe. The only “morality” that may exist is a prison which you lock yourself into based upon whatever you decide to subjectively follow.

What you begin to realize is that as the prisoner you are also the jailor. There is no real imperstive to be “moral” at all. You’re a prisoner with the key to your own cell.

So why bother with the prison at all? Why live according to someone else’s terms? Why live according to society’s terms?

Without God there is only the will to power & survival of the fittest. Any notion of morality is absurd and ridiculous and deserves only the most flippant consideration.

 

[tonyrey]

Morality has no rational basis in a godless universe. The only “morality” that may exist is a prison which you lock yourself into based upon whatever you decide to subjectively follow.

What you begin to realize is that as the prisoner you are also the jailor. There is no real imperstive to be “moral” at all. You’re a prisoner with the key to your own cell.

So why bother with the prison at all? Why live according to someone else’s terms? Why live according to society’s terms?

Without God there is only the will to power & survival of the fittest. Any notion of morality is absurd and ridiculous and deserves only the most flippant consideration.

Fortunately in our secular society there are many people whose values are based on our Christian heritage. One of those who formulated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was Jacques Maritain, a Catholic philosopher.