Why Theists call atheism a Rejection of God

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by aaqucnaona, Jan 20, 2012.

  1. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    I would like to open this thread with this very lucrative video which is a thesis on the title question.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU

    This video represents my initial 2 cents. I hope this thread will become a good and healthy discussion on both the semantics and the philosophy of belief in god and maybe we will even come to some consensus on the rather drawn out thread on religiously motivated violence.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    One either accepts God, or one rejects God.
    There is no inbetween.


    This topic isn't so much about God, as it is about the nature of exclusive options.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    You could also be agnostic on the issue.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    What is more appropriate -
    You reject the existence of bigfoot or
    You are sceptical of the existence of bigfoot

    For me, its statement 2.

    Agreed. But exclusion is not rejection. Its the unwillingness to grant something as truth until we know it is true. We are not saying it is false. A person is a murder or he is not. But we is innocent until proven guilty. God exists or he doesnt. But he is not accepted into our ontologies until proven to exist.

    Why is the difference between do not believe and disbelieve so difficult for you to understand?
     
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058

    In effect
    , an agnostic still rejects God.
     
  9. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Whether you reject the existence of X, or whether you are skeptical about the existence of X, how you act in relation to X is the same in both cases: namely, you act as if X doesn't exist.


    In practice, it is the same.



    Watch out whom you are addressing this to. :bugeye:
     
  10. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    Agreed. But do you think it is bad to act as if god doesnt exist? I mean, there are good theists and bad theists just like there are good and bad atheists.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Lol, just kidding, I was a bit harsh, I guess.
     
  11. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    By definition not, since an agnostic would think that we cannot know one way or another, or that there is not yet sufficient information to accept or reject a god or gods.
     
  12. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    In effect, yes:


    In effect
    , an agnostic still rejects God.

    An agnostic acts as if there is no God.
     
  13. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    It's certainly bad to act badly.


    Acting as if God doesn't exist in effect prevents one from ever finding out whether God exists or not.


    You need to check my posting history, before making claims about what I understand or don't.
    I've started many threads on this topic.
     
  14. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,692
    Not necessarily.
    You don't need to know God to have belief that God exists.
    Agnostic Theism is not a nul-set... heck, my brother is one... he genuinely believes God exists (theist) yet accepts that it is purely a matter of faith and that it is not possible to know God, unless you have a direct encounter, which he admits he has not. So he is a weak-agnostic.
     
  15. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Which one?
     
  16. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    How does he act?
    Does he act as if God exists, or does he act as if God doesn't exist?
     
  17. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    The advantage of natural theology and a henological approach to theism is that they aspire for an understanding of God that is above the particularisms of historically established theisms.

    Their disadvantage is that they do provide immediate avenues of identification, the way historically established theisms do.

    However, since all historically established theisms essentially maintain that God is the Supreme Being, even natural theology and a henological approach to theism are bound to lead the person forward, toward God.
     
  18. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    So theism has always been monotheism? How much of a western cultural bias is that?
     
  19. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Even in polythestic systems, there is one god that is considered supreme to others (such as Zeus or Thor).
     
  20. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    There can be, but it's not universal (Shinto, Animism). Your examples are still western.
     
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,692
    He acts as if God exists. He considers himself Catholic. He believes in the afterlife, the forgiveness of sins by God, the moral code handed down by his religion etc.
    He is an agnostic theist... and a practising theist.
     
  22. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    883
    The author of that video clearly doesn't understand religion. His argument is based in ignorance.

    Please keep in mind that I am talking about religious paradigms. I would never impose my leap of faith to believe, or to believe not, on anyone else.

    The core of many religious beliefs is that you can know God in your heart. By rejecting what you "know to be true in your heart", or the inability to recognize "the truth", which is seen as a refusal to accept "the truth", in their view, you ARE rejecting God. This is what many religious people are referencing when they talk about rejection. In their view, skepticism may well be seen as a choice for evil because your are denying the part of God that exists within you. As Christ said, blessed are those who have not seen, but still believe. So the requirement for proof is considered a rejection of God.

    Next, if provided proof of God, he wouldn't need to believe, he would know. So is he saying that even given proof, he might choose to not believe? His entire argument is nonsense.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2012
  23. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    Please substantiate this assertion.

    Ohhhh. :bawl:
     

Share This Page