Originally posted by Proper Knob
Suzianne said -

'God cannot sin. To convince someone to kill someone is sinful. Ergo, God wouldn't do it.'

Yet God does exactly this in the Bible.

Sinful killing? No, He doesn't.

Originally posted by Penguin
OK then, I think we use the specific meaning of the word 'reject' that we do because it is clear that is the meaning usually intended by theists when they ask why we reject god. I'm sure you are aware of that so I am wondering why you are so obsessed with the fact that we like to clarify our position.

Penguin

This was covered by some in the thread, that "to reject" to some feels like "taking an action", so they do not equate "not believing" with "rejection", just because of this semantic difference in what they feel the word means.

"Obsession"? I wouldn't categorize it as such. Curiosity? Much, much closer. But I don't find it "clarifying". I call it confusing if you purposefully use a different meaning of the word when you do it.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Okay, now this is good. Now you're thinking.

LOL. Are you Galveston in disguise?

Okay. How does 1 Samuel 15:3 fit into the God not convincing people to kill scenario?[/b]

Again, "I'm not sure if that word means what you think it means".

The Amalekites and the Hebrews have always been at odds, and usually at war. Telling your chosen people to go to war, as God did here, is not the same as 'guilefully convincing them to sin by murdering someone'.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Interesting that you think the story in Genesis 22 is about 'faith' when the exact word used is 'fear'.

Throughout the Bible, the people we're talking about are ancients, living thousands of years ago. In those days, 'faith' and 'fear' were practically interchangeable. If one were to have one of these emotions towards God, chances are good that they would have the other. Even today, religious communities speak of the 'fear of God' as being a good thing, often equated with 'faith'. "He's a good, God-fearing Christian man," for example.

"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son," -- Hebrews 11:17, KJV

By faith.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Sinful killing? No, He doesn't.

isnt the command for abraham to kill his son sinful? it seems extraordinarily cruel.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Though I haven't read this entire thread, I'm unclear where this is coming from. I and every atheist I know in real life reject Jehovah for the same reason we reject Zeus, Apollo, and Quetzalcoatl: No evidence that they exist. Simple as that.

Speaking for myself, my primary reason for not even having faith in Jehovah is because of the sheer im ...[text shortened]... hich for its part is not required to have a beginning) just seems to be the height of absurdity.

Though I haven't read this entire thread, I'm unclear where this is coming from. I and every atheist I know in real life reject Jehovah for the same reason we reject Zeus, Apollo, and Quetzalcoatl: No evidence that they exist. Simple as that.

Yes, this was my main confusion in the thread, how I can totally reject some god simply because I do not believe in it, yet there are a LOT of atheists who refuse to acknowledge that they are rejecting anything. I'm frankly surprised to see that you actually say that you reject Jehovah, since most atheists I spoke with in this thread (and I was starting to think that all atheists here thought the same about this) did acknowledge that they do claim that "I do not reject God, I don't believe he exists," which I just find nonsensical at best, and semantic and confusing at worst. I was just trying to make some sense of this and find out why atheists in particular do this. You seem to be a rarity, my friend; you are not shy to admit that yes, you DO reject God, because you don't believe he exists.

Speaking for myself, my primary reason for not even having faith in Jehovah is because of the sheer implausibility that reality had its beginnings with a highly complex, highly intelligent consciousness which in turn gave rise to less impressive things like hydrogen clouds and humans. That is, to explain the beginnings of physics, which is mindless and simple, by invoking an omnipotent and self-aware superbeing (which for its part is not required to have a beginning) just seems to be the height of absurdity.

But do not most inventors, most creators, bring things about that are, of necessity, less impressive than themselves? Would not the Creator of the universe, as impressive as it is, have to be even more impressive?

Originally posted by Suzianne

Though I haven't read this entire thread, I'm unclear where this is coming from. I and every atheist I know in real life reject Jehovah for the same reason we reject Zeus, Apollo, and Quetzalcoatl: No evidence that they exist. Simple as that.

Yes, this was my main confusion in the thread, how I can totally reject some god simply [i]because[ ...[text shortened]... Would not the Creator of the universe, as impressive as it is, have to be even more impressive?

i think the reason atheists do not like to say they 'reject god' is because it implies that the standard is to believe and that they are breaking from the norm. therefore we always start with god existing, thus putting the emphasis on the atheist to disprove god.
by making sure the correct semantics are used we ensure that the default setting that god exist isnt the norm.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
isnt the command for abraham to kill his son sinful? it seems extraordinarily cruel.

Did Abraham actually kill his son? No. It was a test. And Abraham, by faith, passed.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i think the reason atheists do not like to say they 'reject god' is because it implies that the standard is to believe and that they are breaking from the norm. therefore we always start with god existing, thus putting the emphasis on the atheist to disprove god.
by making sure the correct semantics are used we ensure that the default setting that god exist isnt the norm.

But our position is that it's reality, so why shouldn't it "be the norm"?

It IS the "norm" for us.

Yes, I get it. It ISN'T the "norm" for you.

Still, either way you look at it, the end result is a rejection of God. Why not call it what it is?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Again, "I'm not sure if that word means what you think it means".

The Amalekites and the Hebrews have always been at odds, and usually at war. Telling your chosen people to go to war, as God did here, is not the same as 'guilefully convincing them to sin by murdering someone'.

God explicitly told them to kill children. How is that not sinful?

'Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’

1 Samuel 15:3

Originally posted by Suzianne
Sinful killing? No, He doesn't.

Telling someone to deliberately kill children is not sinful?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Throughout the Bible, the people we're talking about are ancients, living thousands of years ago. In those days, 'faith' and 'fear' were practically interchangeable. If one were to have one of these emotions towards God, chances are good that they would have the other. Even today, religious communities speak of the 'fear of God' as being a good thing, of ...[text shortened]... had received the promises offered up his only begotten son," -- Hebrews 11:17, KJV

By faith.

Yes, a reverence and awe for God: Psalm 33:8, "Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the people of the world revere him."

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Telling someone to deliberately kill children is not sinful?

No. It isn't.

Not when god is doing the telling.

Because SIN is not morality, it is what god commands.

This is why I take great pains to try to separate the ideas of sin and
morality because they are not even remotely the same thing.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No. It isn't.

Not when god is doing the telling.

Because SIN is not morality, it is what god commands.

This is why I take great pains to try to separate the ideas of sin and
morality because they are not even remotely the same thing.

"This is why I take great pains to try to separate the ideas of sin and
morality because they are not even remotely the same thing." googlefudge

The Ten Commandments codify fundamental moral standards and establish a freedom code which reinforces the divine institutions of free will; marriage; family; and nationalism for the purpose of protecting and perpetuating the human race. Thou shalt not kill prohibits the sin of murder which destroys an individual's free will. God has commanded this prohibition.

Originally posted by Suzianne

Though I haven't read this entire thread, I'm unclear where this is coming from. I and every atheist I know in real life reject Jehovah for the same reason we reject Zeus, Apollo, and Quetzalcoatl: No evidence that they exist. Simple as that.

Yes, this was my main confusion in the thread, how I can totally reject some god simply [i]because[ ...[text shortened]... Would not the Creator of the universe, as impressive as it is, have to be even more impressive?

Not being a regular on this forum, I can only guess that those other atheists you're referring to are making a distinction between "rejecting God" and "rejecting the idea of God." It may not be a trivial distinction, for surely rejecting the idea of God (i.e. the hypothesis that God exists) is a bit different from someone who believes in God but rejects him on account of, say, hating him for being a big meanie.

But I stand by what I said, because as far as I'm concerned "to reject" can be taken as a synonym for "to not believe in." Context takes care of the rest.