Barriers to belief

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke

If God does not exist, why would one resent a final authority that equally does not exist. Once again you are merely revealing the deep rooted misunderstanding you have of an atheistic mind set.

Since I used the word "some" people with unbelief, I did not insist that this was always the case with all atheists. My observation was about those of the "some" for whom this is a case including some atheists and some agnostics and even some religious theists / deists.

Just to clarify 2 misunderstandings you have repeatedly made in these forums, one about Hinduism and one about atheism:
1. Hindus do not believe that each reincarnation creates a separate soul. They believe it is the same soul that is reincarnated, even if there is no memory of the previous lives lived. No matter how many times you post otherwise, this continues to remain the case.

What do you believe ?

Would you consider your soul to be the same soul as 20 or more previous beings ?
The Psyche in Greek is also translated "self".

Maybe it would be interesting to go into the language that expresses the philosophy and see what the definition of "soul" is.

You keep saying that this is my mistake. But I am only questioning the logical implications of reincarnation. The RE in RE-INCARNATION implies to me that SOMETHING is, ie. RE-ENTERING existence.

My concern is exactly WHAT is being said to RE-incarnate.

2. Atheists 'do not' believe God exists. They do not secretly believe in Him and then reject him or turn away from him out of resentment.

I would say that you are making the same mistake that you want to accuse me of. You presume to speak for each and every atheist.

Since I used the word "some" I left plenty of room for atheists for whom what I described may not be an issue. If you feel you are among those for whom what I said was not an issue, that's your case.

Atheists simply do not believe he is there. No matter how many times you post otherwise, this continues to remain the case.

In my initial post which seems to have invoked this response, I did not use the word atheists. I used the phrase about "unbelief"..

Here is what I wrote. And strictly speaking the word Atheist does not even appear. "Unbelief" is a more general term. You're inserting "Atheist" into what you read.

A major barrier is not so much past experience but anticipation of a possible future experience. That is the resentment that God will have the final say and that as the Judge He has the power to enforce His authority over that final say.

I am convinced that resentment of God's final authority fuels some unwillingness to believe. To fight this future inescapable final authority is more important to some sinners.

Notice how sinners will gravitate inevitably to expressing hatred for the revelation of eternal punishment. Nothing else of God's love, mercy, longsuffering, patience or salvation can be seen. These divine attributes are discarded. Only final judgment for rejectiing God is seen and hated. Some only see the inescapable event of final judgment for unrepentance.

I think if you look beyond some of the existential fog, a refusal to admit final consequences for unbelief are in God's hands and not the sinner's, is a barrier to belief.

Originally posted by sonship
Since I used the word "some" I left plenty of room for atheists for whom what I described may not be an issue. If you feel you are among those for whom what I said was not an issue, that's your case.

So do you believe that "some" atheists ~ albeit not Ghost of a Duke ~ in fact believe in God and "resent" Him as a being who actually is real and exists?

Originally posted by FMF
So do you believe that "some" atheists ~ albeit not Ghost of a Duke ~ in fact believe in God and "resent" Him as a being who actually is real and exists?

You still owe me an answer to a question on the Divination thread.
Go check it out, answer.

Its high time we had some equity in procedure here in this grilling posters with questions.

Originally posted by sonship
You still owe me an answer to a question on the [b]Divination thread.
Go check it out, answer.

Its high time we had some equity in procedure here in this grilling posters with questions.[/b]

I am asking you about stuff you have been saying on this thread - indeed, only a few moments ago. Do you believe that "some" atheists ~ not including Ghost of a Duke ~ in fact believe that God exists and they "resent" Him?

Originally posted by sonship

If God does not exist, why would one resent a final authority that equally does not exist. Once again you are merely revealing the deep rooted misunderstanding you have of an atheistic mind set.

Since I used the word "some" people with unbelief, I did not insist that this was always the case with all atheists. My observation was about ...[text shortened]... sequences for unbelief are in God's hands and not the sinner's, is a barrier to belief. [/quote]

Since I used the word "some" people with unbelief, I did not insist that this was always the case with all atheists...

I would suggest 'almost no' is a truer summation than 'some.' I'd be surprised if you'd ever encountered one 'unbeliever' who's unbelief was attributed to divine resentment of His final power. Why do you think it is that you prefer to see unbelief as divine resentment, rather than simple (and far more common) disbelief in his existence? (full stop).

What do you believe?

It doesn't matter what I, or you, believe. It is what Hindus themselves believe that is the issue of your misunderstanding. Can you really not see that?!


While i often admire your indepth knowledge of Christianity, I am often surprised at your basic misunderstanding of other religions and non-religions. These misunderstandings appear rather ridiculous when you compound them by using such expressions as 'I am convinced' and leaves one wondering what the Dickens has convinced you.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I don't think truth by nature is always necessarily believable.That said, I think people build mental barriers to reject certain beliefs based on past experiences. For example, if you had a bad experience with someone from a specific religious group, you may reject that religion based on the experience you had with said person and not necessarily because that religion does not make sense to you.

Perhaps you should look at it from the other side.

What characteristics do you think a given individual would need to have in order to believe the core doctrine of Christianity after it is explained to them? What evidence can be given that it is true?

Originally posted by FMF
Like I said, the reasons I don't feel I have any convincing reason to believe books like the Bible and the Koran are divinely inspired include their source and origin, their credibility as evidence, and their purpose analyzed, in part, through how they were compiled and the use to which they have been put. I don't think they chart revelations by God. I think the ...[text shortened]... logy and psychology. I have no reason to believe there is any supernatural element or influence.

"I have no reason to believe there is any supernatural element or influence."

It may be that any such "reason to believe" would reduce the supernatural to the natural. That is what happens when we explain things by culture, anthropology and psychology. Only the natural gets through the filter.

Originally posted by JS357
FMF: "I have no reason to believe there is any supernatural element or influence."

It may be that any such "reason to believe" would reduce the supernatural to the natural. That is what happens when we explain things by culture, anthropology and psychology. Only the natural gets through the filter.

The answer the thread's question, then, is that for someone like me, the "barrier to belief" is that there has not been a credible revelation of the supposed supernatural element or influence and instead all I have are the unconvincing claims about such a revelation [that there is something supernatural beyond, above and behind culture, anthropology and psychology] that the likes of Christians and Muslims.make.

Originally posted by FMF
The answer the thread's question, then, is that for someone like me, the "barrier to belief" is that there has not been a credible revelation of the supposed supernatural element or influence and instead all I have are the unconvincing claims about such a revelation [that there is something supernatural beyond, above and behind culture, anthropology and psychology] that the likes of Christians and Muslims.make.

Yes, "someone like you" probably rejects revelation in the sense of "revealed truth" which is implied by your demand that it pass some test of credibility. I am willing to accept that someday I may believe something supernatural is true without having credible evidence, and I think I have done so, but in my experience those beliefs often get dashed.

Originally posted by JS357
I am willing to accept that someday I may believe something supernatural is true without having credible evidence, and I think I have done so, but in my experience those beliefs often get dashed.

I already accept that something supernatural may be true and do so without having credible evidence. When I talk about the "revelation" that Christians and Muslims make claims about, I have in mind their notions about specific, elaborate communication with divine beings comprising instructions, rules, promises of rewards and punishments, and purportedly "true" and "real" set of ancient stories populated by a cast of human and non-human characters.

Originally posted by FMF
You've asked about this thing before and I have answered it and duscussed it. Perhaps you don't remember. Or perhaps you are pretending not to remember.

You use this exact same tactic each time you don't wish to answer a question.

Originally posted by FMF
I already accept that something supernatural may be true and do so without having credible evidence. When I talk about the "revelation" that Christians and Muslims make claims about, I have in mind their notions about specific, elaborate communication with divine beings comprising instructions, rules, promises of rewards and punishments, and purportedly "true" and "real" set of ancient stories populated by a cast of human and non-human characters.

You say you reject the Bible as a revelation of God based on certain criteria, yet you can't tell me what it would have to be like to be acceptable to you. Which makes it seem to me like you just reject it because you want to and because you can.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
"I am convinced that resentment of God's final authority fuels some unwillingness to believe."


If God does not exist, why would one resent a final authority that equally does not exist.
Once again you are merely revealing the deep rooted misunderstanding you have of an atheistic mind set.

Just to clarify 2 misunderstandings you have repeated ...[text shortened]... eve he is there. No matter how many times you post otherwise, this continues to remain the case.

If God does not exist, why would one resent a final authority that equally does not exist.

Well you could certainly resent the idea of God existing.

Originally posted by FMF
The answer the thread's question, then, is that for someone like me, the "barrier to belief" is that there has not been a credible revelation of the supposed supernatural element or influence and instead all I have are the unconvincing claims about such a revelation [that there is something supernatural beyond, above and behind culture, anthropology and psychology] that the likes of Christians and Muslims.make.

there has not been a credible revelation of the supposed supernatural element or influence

What would you consider to be a 'credible' revelation of supernatural element? If other people find the revelation to be credible and you don't, what substance can you provide to convince them that they are wrong and you are right about the credibility of the Bible as the revelation of God?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
You say you reject the Bible as a revelation of God based on certain criteria, yet you can't tell me what it would have to be like to be acceptable to you. Which makes it seem to me like you just reject it because you want to and because you can.

If the stuff you propagate struck me as credible, I would "know", and I would realize that I believed it. But I don't. Because it doesn't.