I'm puzzled, because I think most theists would have no problem being "out" about their belief that God is real.
You don't seem to want to accept that theism, and atheism, are natural positions for human beings. We are born with the capacity to accept either. Creatures are born infused with capacity, are they not?
It's not clear to me how you think about God, in that case, and I'm interested.
Me being a theist should provide you with the adequate reasons how I think about God.
I shouldn't have to explain it anymore than that, as it is the starting position.
So you are an essentialist? That is, you think that people are born atheist or theist, and that's all there is to it? Or perhaps you think their atheism or theism is thrust on them by nature, and they're stuck with what they get?
Nope. I think that people are born with the capacity to accept, or reject God.
I think that is why there are two positions which we call theism and atheism.
Do you perhaps have an argument you make to yourself that allows this God to be ("God IS") and yet not reveal himself as a real being? If so, could you share it with me, so I can better understand your
position
?
Not really. No.
See, for me, when I thought about whether to believe in God I didn't start from "I'm an atheist, so I'll close...
...alternative, and see where that takes me as a theist."
You were already atheist. Thinking about whether or not to believe in God, is not theistic.
Deciding to love someone, is not the same as simply loving someone, regardless of what you think of them.
Rather, I said started from something more like "Let me learn about the idea of God, what people say about God, what evidence there is of God in the world, what I sense/feel about God,....
...more widely on my own.
Your starting point is a non acceptance of God.
Acceptance can be faster than thought.
I don't think anybody is a "natural" theist or a "natural" atheist. I think theism is mostly something that is indoctrinated into people from an early age. Most people learn about theism long before they are aware that atheism is even a possibility.
And that is the difference. We both see it from our perspectives.
And as I am now, I don't believe that I'm an atheist because of anything "fundamental" or essentialist or "natural". Atheism is just a rational conclusion...
...so why would atheism be any different?
I never said it was fixed. I said we have the ability to accept or deny God.
To decided whether or not there is any merit to this concept, God, is an atheist characteristic.
I believed in God, just like you believe in God.
No you didn't. You decided to believe in God. I didn't.
That's a fairly common assumption that theists like yourself make about atheists. You assume ex-theists weren't "in" religion for the same noble reasons you're in it. No, the evil atheists must have been in it for selfish reasons.
It's not about being noble, nor is it about being better, or safer, or anything like that. You just come to a realisation, and you surrender.
From what I can ascertain, you didn't come to such a realisation. You decided to give it a try.
In fact, atheists are people just like you, no better or worse, fundamentally. They just don't happen to believe in God.
Exactly.
And stay tuned for the inevitable rationalisations: how I was always "essentially" an atheist,...
...when I professed the normal theistic faith and belief; etc.
You didn't think you were atheist, because you were deciding whether or not there was any merit to this idea called God.
You probably thought you were in some kind of limbo, or deciding place. Neither atheist or theist (until decision day).
But you were atheist. God was only an idea, and was always only an idea.
Why is it important what I want, or what you want? Is it any more likely that God will exist if I want him to? Will he spring into existence if I wish hard enough? Is that what happened for you?
You're less likely to accept something, if you don't want to.
You've barricaded yourself in by setting up standards of acceptance.
No matter what you can shift the goalpost to suit yourself.
Is this you admitting there is no convincing argument for God, then? Or just no argument that you think might convince me?
A ''convincing argument'' is a two way street. It requires two sides.
Imagine asking your fiancé to give you a convincing argument for why you should spend the rest of your life with her.
Do you think it is possible for an essentialist atheist like myself ever to change and start believing in God?
Of course.
Anthony Flew, for example. Do you think he was really secretly a "natural" theist all along, then? Why did a convincing argument arrive for him? Or did it? Maybe he just decided to start being a theist. But, if so, what happened to his essentialist "nature"?
Somewhere along the line he decided not to accept the notion (so it remained a notion), and like you, went off to decide for himself.
I suspect what happened was, he became tired of the thought processes required to keep God at bay. and would have been able to accept the realisations, and reasoning about God, without having to maintain barriers. The obviousness hit him, and had to concede.
Maybe it's because of the emphasis on awareness,...
...lack the appropriate capacity to perceive God.
What you call my ''assumption'' is no different to your ''assumption'' that for God to exist, there must be evidence of my choosing, to support that assertion. It is where we start.
Maybe it's because of the "for you" that you like to slip in there. God exists, you assume,...
...OK by them if God exists for me.
I've never said ''God exists''. I, and you, exist. If God exists, as in I or you exist (which is what you mean by existence), then God is just another object that exists within the universe. Therefore God would not be God, by definition.
I have no awareness of the existence of God. That could be (a) because God exists and I lack capacity, or (b) because God doesn't exist. To decide which of these is the correct explanation, we'd first need to establish...
...as to why I'm not aware of God.
And that's why you're an atheist. There is no God, only an idea of God.
Note that the second reason is reliant on the first.
You're right, in a sense. Because you won't tell me, or anybody else, I am left to draw conclusions from other things that you write. And from what I'm gathering here, you have little confidence that God exists in reality. It "doesn't
work like that" for you, you tell me.
I've told you lots of stuff. But you reject a lot of it.
You should learn to accept peoples fundamental positions, and not imply that they are wrong (which is what you do), because it is not the same as yours.
On the one hand, your position strikes me as a kind of default that you've never really sat down to consider.
Why?
It's like you started believing in God and never honestly considered the alternative. It's like a habit. Or maybe it's like a belief that you have a "God gene", and there's nothing you can do about it.
It's like somebody blind from birth, not accepting that others have eyes and can see the things they can only feel. Even they have a good grasp at what ''seeing' is, it would be understandable how they can come to non acceptance.
jan.
