Do atheists indocrinate their children into their belief system?

[greenberg]

The implication to stating that "God is a matter of personal experience" or "The existence of God is a matter of opinion"
is that

either
1. There is no God
or
2. God can be known only to the select few


In this regard, the atheits' demand for evidence is perfectly justified.
Because this isn't about the taste of apples or oranges and people's opinions and personal experiences about the taste of apples or oranges.

It is about the Creator of the Universe, the Creator of each and every being.
Bringing this down to matters of "opinion" and "personal experience" is a mockery to everyone.

Theists have a long history of not taking atheists seriously. But they should, given that it is the theists who claim to know God, the Creator of the Universe, the Creator of each and every being. In this regard, theists are superior to atheists.
I do not think theists are taking enough responsibility for the claims they make about God, for the way they present themselves.

What is worst, many theists automatically presume that atheists do not want to know God or do not want to serve God. This is simply not true. There are atheists who are willing to know God, willing to know God in the sense that they want to know the Creator of the Universe, the Creator of each and every being. I personally have found that many theists simply do not give us the credit for that.

Moreover, and hence a lot of atheist frustrations, the instructions many theists give to people on what they should do in order to arrive at knowledge of God - those instructions are often impossible to carry out, full of contradictions, or even contain immoral requests.

Atheists cannot be exclusively blamed that over time, there accumulates in them a hatred and disgust for theism and theists, given the patronizing, manipulation, and most of all, poor reasoning that the theists are giving them and expect them to accept without question.

 

[Enmos]

The implication to stating that "God is a matter of personal experience" or "The existence of God is a matter of opinion"
is that

either
1. There is no God
or
2. God can be known only to the select few


In this regard, the atheits' demand for evidence is perfectly justified.
Because this isn't about the taste of apples or oranges and people's opinions and personal experiences about the taste of apples or oranges.

It is about the Creator of the Universe, the Creator of each and every being.
Bringing this down to matters of "opinion" and "personal experience" is a mockery to everyone.

Theists have a long history of not taking atheists seriously. But they should, given that it is the theists who claim to know God, the Creator of the Universe, the Creator of each and every being. In this regard, theists are superior to atheists.
I do not think theists are taking enough responsibility for the claims they make about God, for the way they present themselves.

What is worst, many theists automatically presume that atheists do not want to know God or do not want to serve God. This is simply not true. There are atheists who are willing to know God, willing to know God in the sense that they want to know the Creator of the Universe, the Creator of each and every being. I personally have found that many theists simply do not give us the credit for that.

Moreover, and hence a lot of atheist frustrations, the instructions many theists give to people on what they should do in order to arrive at knowledge of God - those instructions are often impossible to carry out, full of contradictions, or even contain immoral requests.

Atheists cannot be exclusively blamed that over time, there accumulates in them a hatred and disgust for theism and theists, given the patronizing, manipulation, and most of all, poor reasoning that the theists are giving them and expect them to accept without question.

Although surprising coming from you this is well worded and I agree wholeheartedly
Do you now consider yourself an atheist ? I thought you were agnostic.

 

[greenberg]

Although surprising coming from you this is well worded

Are you saying that otherwise, my posts are normally poorly worded?

Do you now consider yourself an atheist ? I thought you were agnostic.

My stance in matters about God is complex. I have explained it more than once, from several angles.
Theoretically, I could be said to be an atheist with the desire to believe in the right God - which is, as far as common use of the terms goes, a contradiction in terms. The usual labels are too simplistic to adequately express my stance.

 

[Enmos]

Are you saying that otherwise, my posts are normally poorly worded?

LOL no of course not. I was worried you might take it that way at first, but then I thought you would understand what I meant.. I guess I'm the one that words poorly
I just meant the contents of your post, I thought you was agnostic.

My stance in matters about God is complex. I have explained it more than once, from several angles.
Theoretically, I could be said to be an atheist with the desire to believe in the right God - which is, as far as common use of the terms goes, a contradiction in terms. The usual labels are too simplistic to adequately express my stance.

Ah ok
Seeing the amount of threads you started lately in the religion forum, I kind of concluded you were struggeling with your stance.
Then I read above post and I thought you were strongly going in a certain direction; atheism.

 

[greenberg]

Seeing the amount of threads you started lately in the religion forum, I kind of concluded you were struggeling with your stance.
Then I read above post and I thought you were strongly going in a certain direction; atheism.

My posting here has a lot to do with my figuring out stance, but also to make at least some minor impact on how the theist-atheist discussions/debates go.

I think all too often, atheists let theists all too easily off the hook. Somehow, it is often taken for granted that the theists are "crazy" and they are left to get away with saying that their stance on God is merely an "opinion".
Generally, in the West, I think atheists have not taken theists seriously enough, and this helped to lead to a severe degradation in how theistic doctrines are expounded on by the theists.

And if anyone is going to raise the standards of the theist-atheist discussions/debates, it seems to me it will have to be the atheists.

Unfortunately, those theists who should be made aware of this the most are probably not reading this.

 

[Enmos]

My posting here has a lot to do with my figuring out stance, but also to make at least some minor impact on how the theist-atheist discussions/debates go.

I think all too often, atheists let theists all too easily off the hook. Somehow, it is often taken for granted that the theists are "crazy" and they are left to get away with saying that their stance on God is merely an "opinion".
Generally, in the West, I think atheists have not taken theists seriously enough, and this helped to lead to a severe degradation in how theistic doctrines are expounded on by the theists.

And if anyone is going to raise the standards of the theist-atheist discussions/debates, it seems to me it will have to be the atheists.

Unfortunately, those theists who should be made aware of this the most are probably not reading this.

Well.. I agree with you but some characters are just extremely tiresome, and just repeat everything over and over without any attempt to actually explain anything.
At some point any person will get enough of it, and realize they can do better things with their time

 

[greenberg]

Well.. I agree with you but some characters are just extremely tiresome, and just repeat everything over and over without any attempt to actually explain anything.
At some point any person will get enough of it, and realize they can do better things with their time

Of course.
And I admit I am getting very tired of all this.

I dare say I think I have developed my position quite a lot within the last few months, compared to before.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The implication to stating that "God is a matter of personal experience" or "The existence of God is a matter of opinion"
is that

either
1. There is no God
or
2. God can be known only to the select few


In this regard, the atheits' demand for evidence is perfectly justified.
Because this isn't about the taste of apples or oranges and people's opinions and personal experiences about the taste of apples or oranges.

It is about the Creator of the Universe, the Creator of each and every being.
Bringing this down to matters of "opinion" and "personal experience" is a mockery to everyone.

What would they accept as evidence?

Theists have a long history of not taking atheists seriously. But they should, given that it is the theists who claim to know God, the Creator of the Universe, the Creator of each and every being. In this regard, theists are superior to atheists.
I do not think theists are taking enough responsibility for the claims they make about God, for the way they present themselves.

You are generalising.
Your presets are destuctive to discussion.

What is worst, many theists automatically presume that atheists do not want to know God or do not want to serve God.

Many atheists do not want to know or serve God, by their own admission.

ere are atheists who are willing to know God, willing to know God in the sense that they want to know the Creator of the Universe, the Creator of each and every being. I personally have found that many theists simply do not give us the credit for that.

Then do so. What is stopping you?

Moreover, and hence a lot of atheist frustrations, the instructions many theists give to people on what they should do in order to arrive at knowledge of God - those instructions are often impossible to carry out, full of contradictions, or even contain immoral requests.

Such as?

Atheists cannot be exclusively blamed that over time, there accumulates in them a hatred and disgust for theism and theists, given the patronizing, manipulation, and most of all, poor reasoning that the theists are giving them and expect them to accept without question.

Which atheists are you referring to?

Jan.

 

[(Q)]

Many atheists do not want to know or serve God, by their own admission.

How can they know or serve that which you are unable to demonstrate exists?

 

[Jan Ardena]

How can they know or serve that which you are unable to demonstrate exists?

Ask them.
I've often heard athiests say even if God existed they wouldn't serve him.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

Your problem is that you want to believe and you want it to be logical and make sense. Not gonna happen.
”
Declare omniscience this instant, or I will hold you to be a liar.

Liar? Seems like a reasonable call and prediction to me - could be wrong, but how is it a lie ?

You used the word hearsay. That he was basing his belief on hearsay. If this person has experiences that indicate to him there is a God, you are incorrect.

Not quite. Regardless of experience, a person's attributing it to a previously existing God of their culture is going to be basing that attribution on hearsay, almost certainly (preponderance of evidence)

I am not saying that personal experiences are evidence for you, a non-experiencer, or constitute proof in some way. I am saying that it can be a reason why some believers believe.

But not why they attribute their experience to , and align their beilief with, a God familiar to them from what is basically gossip.

Basing a belief on experience and assuming that this constitutes proof for others are two different things. I think you might be surprised how many theists get this.

It's more surprising how many don't, and expect evidence of sincerity in belief from personal experience to be taken as evidence of the reality of whatever God is involved this time.

The theist argument from sincerity is common enough to be category of its own, in this kind of discussion.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Liar? Seems like a reasonable call and prediction to me - could be wrong, but how is it a lie ?

because he is claiming to know that there is no God.

Not quite. Regardless of experience, a person's attributing it to a previously existing God of their culture is going to be basing that attribution on hearsay, almost certainly (preponderance of evidence) But not why they attribute their experience to , and align their beilief with, a God familiar to them from what is basically gossip.

At the very least they are not basing their belief ONLY on hearsay. And now that we are speaking in general, there are many theists who believe that there are number of routes to One God and that names are not so important. So for convenience speaking about it in their own culture's terms is convenience. And even if this is not the case, their belief in God is based on experience and is distorted, filled out, added to by, or guided by the specific religion. This does not make it hearsay. If I get knocked down on a dark street and I hear someone's footsteps running away and I later hear from another witness who says a man ran out of the alley - God often being male - my sense that there was someone who pushed me down is not hearsay, even if I start telling the story to others where I assert a man pushed me down.

It's more surprising how many don't, and expect evidence of sincerity in belief from personal experience to be taken as evidence of the reality of whatever God is involved this time.

I think you should ask people this question directly. I actually think very few theists will say 'Yes, I have told you there is a God, I am convinced so therefore you should be.' I really doubt many would say that. And I don't have a high opinion of most theists. It seems me, despite my low opinion, they have ideas that one must reach out, pray, call for experience, open their hearts etc. and THEN they will also have experiences and know the first person's experience was real. I suggest you test this. I think conversations between atheists and theists get very confused both experiencing the other as saying YOU MUST BELIEVE BECAUSE OF or YOU MUST NOT BELIEVE BECAUSE OF, both sides feeling attacked and both sides assuming that any assertion must be taken as evidence or proof FOR THE OTHER.

The theist argument from sincerity is common enough to be category of its own, in this kind of discussion.

But as I said above, in most cases I think you will find that they are defending their own belief and not saying that you should believe because they are sincere. I think what is someone explaining why they believe is taken as a reason for a non-experiencer to believe.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Ask them.
I've often heard athiests say even if God existed they wouldn't serve him.

Jan.

As a kind of theist I find the whole notion of 'serving' God very odd. God is the last entity that needs servants.

 

[superluminal]

As a kind of theist I find the whole notion of 'serving' God very odd. God is the last entity that needs servants.

Ha! Good point. This also speaks to the trivialization of god that many christians engage in. The Almighty, Unfathomable, Creator of the Cosmos is really concerned with the petty struggles of humanity? Really? And they oooh and ahhh over the trite little miracles presented in the bible. Pretty silly.

 

[lightgigantic]

As a kind of theist I find the whole notion of 'serving' God very odd. God is the last entity that needs servants.

service has many connotations as opposed to merely some poor sap with an hourly wage.

For instance what would you make of a loving relationship that was bereft of service?
IOW is it possible to enter into any sort of relationship (even a hateful one for that matter) without issues of one's service attitude coming into play ... service can be understood as the very medium of interaction and reciprocation that makes all relationships meaningful.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ha! Good point. This also speaks to the trivialization of god that many christians engage in.

it also speaks of the eagerness of atheists to enter into religious philosophical discussions without bothering with details of terminology ....

 

[superluminal]

it also speaks of the eagerness of atheists to enter into religious philosophical discussions without bothering with details of terminology ....

Oh stuff it LG. You would spend your entire life (and probably do) debating the semantics of every other word. And if I don't agree with your terminology?

So what's the problem this time? The word "servant" and all of it's subtle shades of meaning?

Cripes.

 

[lightgigantic]

Oh stuff it LG. You would spend your entire life (and probably do) debating the semantics of every other word.

only with persons who insist on coming to the platform of practice (or even missing it all together and going on to issues of evidence) without bothering with theory .... which tends to happen quite frequently here ...

And if I don't agree with your terminology?

then you cannot properly enter into the discussion of the issue, particularly if the subject was brought up by another person. For instance if you have some issue of mass to discuss and I have some inaccurate idea on what is signified by the word mass, you would probably cut some joke about a high school drop out and leave it at that

So what's the problem this time? The word "servant" and all of it's subtle shades of meaning?

Cripes.

actually its more about its specific meaning in a specific context ... as opposed to whatever you can possibly drive through by tearing an aperture large enough to steer freight trains through ....

 

[superluminal]

I find it interesting that you fully acknowledge that the fruit of all of your practice and theory and expertise still only results in a subjective perception. And yet you still cling to it's validity and assign to it an aspect of reality.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

service has many connotations as opposed to merely some poor sap with an hourly wage.

I don't think of servants as poor saps. I think it is a class based, imbalanced relationship and people used these relationships as metaphors (along with things like war metaphors like surrender) to encapsulate a relationship. We treat God(s) like Kings and Masters. And that's a problem.

For instance what would you make of a loving relationship that was bereft of service?

You'll have to define for me what you mean here. I do things out of love for the one's I love because I feel like doing them. I don't know where the usual ideas of service come into it. Unless you mean 'to help'. Then, sure, I help the ones I love and they help me. That word seems to have less bagage to it. In fact it would creep me out if my wife started talking about how she sees part of her relationship to me as service. Uggh.

IOW is it possible to enter into any sort of relationship (even a hateful one for that matter) without issues of one's service attitude coming into play ... service can be understood as the very medium of interaction and reciprocation that makes all relationships meaningful.

I still have no idea what you mean by service.