- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNope. Wrong again.
The same reason they offer the FSM as the supposed counter-argument to the existence of God, a way of saying: you are a type of atheist toward the FSM.
They miss the part which hits both sides. Rejection just seems so harsh for them, because it says they had to consider it in the first place!
But then... Have you ever been right..... I got nothing.
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt's nonsensical to suggest I am afraid of a being while I am openly declaring war on it.
I've no more declared war on your god than I have declared war on Voldermort.
Nevertheless if you were right it only reinforces my point.
It's nonsensical to suggest I am afraid of a being while I am openly declaring war on it.
As ludicrous as the idea sounds (creature declaring war on the Creator), from a military stand-point, the troops are always emboldened with offensive actions whereas they are less motivated by remaining in a defensive position.
Too, if there is no possible way of securing victory and surrender is out of the question, the only plausible line of action is suicide: attack before being annihilated.
Maybe there's another answer as to why we don't like the word "rejection". Tell me if this makes sense to anyone. To reject sounds like an "action". Like you make an effort of not believing. An effort of not "seeing" god's existence. But the way I see it, it is the act of "believing" that needs an action. You have to actively accept god's existence, not to mention actively reading the bible and actively going to church. I think that's why the word rejection sounds wrong to us.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI'll assume you meant 'pedant'. 🙂
I think you are looking at this wrong.
I am not 'loathe to admit' anything.
I/we just don't think the term applies.
You are implying and imagining all kinds of motivations that simply aren't there.
The reason I don't 'admit' to 'rejecting' god is because the idea of 'rejecting' god
as I understand it makes no sense. And I am a pendent.
I need no other reason than that.
I think the term applies just fine.
I reject the FSM because I do not believe in him/it. Yes, I reject him/it, and anything having to do with him/it. I have absolutely zero problem saying this. By not believing, I have rejected the possibility of it. Perfectly reasonable. And yet, I see atheist after atheist lining up to deny that they reject God. What am I missing? Since I don't think I'm missing anything, then I must assume there is some heretofore unknown (to me) reason they deny the rejection of God. Some sort of unspoken Pascal's Wager going on? We already know Pascal's Wager doesn't work as a 'just in case' mechanism. So what is the real reason?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell I disagree with your military analysis, that's a separate discussion.
[b]It's nonsensical to suggest I am afraid of a being while I am openly declaring war on it.
As ludicrous as the idea sounds (creature declaring war on the Creator), from a military stand-point, the troops are always emboldened with offensive actions whereas they are less motivated by remaining in a defensive position.
Too, if there is no possible ...[text shortened]... of the question, the only plausible line of action is suicide: attack before being annihilated.[/b]
I actually meant to say "It's nonsensical to suggest I am afraid of offending a
being while I am openly declaring war on it"
It's obviously possible to fear something you are fighting, that was a typo.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Great King RatWell that's part of it.
Maybe there's another answer as to why we don't like the word "rejection". Tell me if this makes sense to anyone. To reject sounds like an "action". Like you make an effort of not believing. An effort of not "seeing" god's existence. But the way I see it, it is the act of "believing" that needs an action. You have to actively accept god's existence, n ...[text shortened]... he bible and actively going to church. I think that's why the word rejection sounds wrong to us.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneI don't reject your god.
I'll assume you meant 'pedant'. 🙂
I think the term applies just fine.
I reject the FSM because I do not believe in him/it. Yes, I reject him/it, and anything having to do with him/it. I have absolutely zero problem saying this. By not believing, I have rejected the possibility of it. Perfectly reasonable. And yet, I see atheist after athe ...[text shortened]... ady know Pascal's Wager doesn't work as a 'just in case' mechanism. So what is the real reason?
I don't think it exists.
What I reject are the arguments people come up with for why your god exists.
See I told you I was a pendent 😉
Originally posted by Great King RatIs this also why some atheists take offense at Christians saying "Well, that's your choice", or is that another topic entirely?
Maybe there's another answer as to why we don't like the word "rejection". Tell me if this makes sense to anyone. To reject sounds like an "action". Like you make an effort of not believing. An effort of not "seeing" god's existence. But the way I see it, it is the act of "believing" that needs an action. You have to actively accept god's existence, n ...[text shortened]... he bible and actively going to church. I think that's why the word rejection sounds wrong to us.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeA: I don't reject your god.
I don't reject your god.
I don't think it exists.
What I reject are the arguments people come up with for why your god exists.
See I told you I was a pendent 😉
B: I don't think it exists.
See, my thinking process is: thinking B, then thinking A makes no sense. I would assume that if you thought B, then you would also think anti-A. Not rejecting my god means you actually accept it, and therefore makes no sense.
Edit: And it's "pedant".
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneIt's another topic.
Is this also why some atheists take offense at Christians saying "Well, that's your choice", or is that another topic entirely?
Look, I can choose whether or not I worship something, worshipping is
something I consciously do or do not do.
Belief on the other hand, isn't something that can simply be chosen.
I can't just will myself to believe the Earth is flat.
I can't just will myself to think I can fly.
And I can't just will myself to believe in gods.
That's not to say I am incapable of believing in gods, just that I need to
be presented with evidence sufficient to make me believe.
How we form beliefs is a tricky subject, but they are not formed by any simple
version of choice.
Now someone has evidently convinced you that belief based on faith is not just
ok but is something to be applauded and valued.
And so you believe [some] things on faith.
I am convinced that you can only believe things based on rationality and evidence.
As such I believe things that have evidence enough to support them.
If the evidence changes, so do my beliefs.
And in some cases where there is insufficient evidence I don't have beliefs.
As an example I don't have a belief as to whether a historical JC existed or not.
I do have a belief that it's more probable he didn't, but it's no slam dunk either way,
and so I don't have a belief that JC did or did not exist as a historical figure.
And I didn't go out and choose to believe that, I read some works that made a compelling
argument backed up by evidence and that changed my mind.
Belief isn't a simple choice.
And saying that it is belittles it for believers and atheists alike.
Originally posted by googlefudgeOn the other hand, I can say that you refuse to believe based on faith, and therefore you refuse to believe in God.
It's another topic.
Look, I can choose whether or not I worship something, worshipping is
something I consciously do or do not do.
Belief on the other hand, isn't something that can simply be chosen.
I can't just will myself to believe the Earth is flat.
I can't just will myself to think I can fly.
And I can't just will myself to believe ...[text shortened]... f isn't a simple choice.
And saying that it is belittles it for believers and atheists alike.
You're saying it's not an act of refusal if you cannot believe based on faith.
Is this close?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneYes. I cannot comprehend believing something on faith.
On the other hand, I can say that you refuse to believe based on faith, and therefore you refuse to believe in God.
You're saying it's not an act of refusal if you cannot believe based on faith.
Is this close?
It just doesn't compute.
If I see [sufficient] evidence for something I believe it.
If I see [sufficient] evidence against something I disbelieve it.
And everything else I have no belief either way.
Now I have over time got better at rational thinking and analysing evidence.
I wasn't born knowing what the proper standards of evidence were.
But I have [since I can remember] never believed things that I didn't have
a 'rational' reason for. [given that I have not always understood rationality.]
I went to a CoE Christian infants and junior school and at no point did I ever
think that the god talked about in assemblies existed, or that prayer actually
did anything. Because I never saw any evidence that god was real or that prayer
worked.
I don't know if I cannot believe based on faith, but the current evidence would tend to
suggest that that is the case.
If I HAD a choice, I would choose rationality and evidence.
But I am not sure I do.
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneTo explain further, I see this thought: (I don't reject your god), as being the same as (I don't reject your god's existence), so to say, in effect, (I don't reject your god's existence, I don't think it exists.) as not making a lick of sense.
A: I don't reject your god.
B: I don't think it exists.
See, my thinking process is: thinking B, then thinking A makes no sense. I would assume that if you thought B, then you would also think anti-A. Not rejecting my god means you actually accept it, and therefore makes no sense.
Edit: And it's "pedant".
Edit: Similarly, (I do reject your god) would be the same as (I do reject your god's existence). So that's basically where I'm coming from.
Explain where I'm going wrong here.