Why Atheists don't believe

I'm reading why folk here don't believe and the word 'evidence' comes up again and again. Whilst many say empirical evidence I suspect that they wouldn't be so dogmatic about it in reality. Any form of evidence which they found compelling would likely do.For those who are that little bit closer and who perhaps find themselves holding to an atheist position because they find themselves wandering around a spiritual roundabout - not knowing which turn off is the right one - then this sentence is worth highlighting.The only way to know God exists for sure is to be sure he exists. The evidence (in whichever form it arrives) must be, as rR says - unmissable. Otherwise it is probably the wrong turn. And the evidence only has to be good enough for you.Nice testimony rR.This message has been edited by iano, 12-May-2006 02:38 PM

Believing is seeing is another way to put it. Seeing first will result in us believing alright. But is plays merry hell with your free will to reject belief. It would make you an automaton.Trust him or be compelled to believe he exists. If God exists then one or the other you will do. "Every knee will bow and every toungue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord". Some will have done so willingly - others will be forced to admit it. But confess we all shall. One way or the other.

Your conclusion that the position "believing is seeing (the evidence)" was as you state above. But how could it be anything but believing is seeing? If one had the evidence first then one would have no choice but to believe - which causes the notion of free-will to evaporate."I have compelling evidence of God but I'm not going to believe he exists" is an illogical position to hold. Can you think of evidence which wouldn't require belief but wasn't so compelling so as to destroy free will not to believe? Not even God can do that.{AbE} The above brings us to an apparent paradox. "I can't believe without evidence, he can't provide evidence without me believing". But God has a way around that.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

CK obviously hasn't Googled the word 'Jesus' and noted his foremost positon in sheer no. of pages compared to the others 'standing alongside him in the crowd'. That many pages ridicule him doesn't detract from his foremost position. Love him or hate him, stand out from the crowd he doesNeither has CK posed a person who could be considered to topple him from the position of being the most notable and studied person (or 'myth' if preferred) in human history.Alexander the Great? Attila the Hun? Gandhi? Plato?

How can one freely chose to disbelieve that God exists if one is given irrefutable evidence that God exists? It seems to me that once you have the evidence then choice to disbelief is no more.And any class of lesser evidence other than totally compelling can be explained away otherwise. Only tentitively of course - but tentitive is deemed sufficient to permit the choice for disbelief.{AbE} ...and if people were thus compelled to believe that God existed would you not expect them to react other than in a free-willed fashion. A pack of fearful forelock-tuggers is what you'd end up with.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

It would be helpful if the word you inserted had the objective of having you believe it exists without interfering with your free will to disbelieve.But by accident you make a pertinant point. You have no (sane) way to disbelieve fire exists - right?. You have seen it with you own eyes. Thus You have no free will to disbelieve something you know exists. But you have free will to disbelieve something you don't know exists.Once you believe in God and get the evidence then you can no longer disbelieve in him. You now know he exists. The step over is made free-willingly of course...

I think the example used was a right-before-you-eyes kind of evidence. If you've a time machine that we can hop into an fast forward back to watch evolution happen before our eyes then I'll book myself a place. What you offer -an inferred conclusion from science (which has been calibrated against the presumptions and assumption of...er...science) is not exactly what I had in mind.

Hopefully when the mirth subsides you'll have gotten the point - and seen yours refutedIncidently, when Paul chose (in Romans 1) an example of human sinfulness on which to demonstrate Gods wrath poured out on all the ungodlyness and wickedness of men, it was sexual perversion that he used.

In your dreams. I suspect if he gave full revelation of himself with us in our current state then widespread insanity would follow. For people would have reason to despair. For they cannot live the life demanded by a holy God. God telling them what not to do (a pull in one direction) and....vacuuum. Nothing to pull them in the opposite direction. This is not choice. Choice only becomes choice when the pull (attraction) in either direction is perfectly balanced. The serpent fulfilled that role. God says vs the serpent says. Man, for the first time, had choice. And he exercised it. I don't think so. God created free willed beings and they exercised their will. I fail to see how some of the alternatives you put up would enable this. God taking them aside for instance and fully explaining (nay showing them) what the full consequences would be would have been unfair - unless some other equally powerful attraction in the opposite direction was allowed to arise. Balanced it had to be.Would you fancy relationships with folk who had no choice but to obey you? Not much fun in that after the novelty wore off. Not much chance for love to flourish either. Because its your God given right to be one.Maybe you can think of how to create fully free willed beings without them being able to chose against you? If you could, it would strenghten your position.{AbE} The reason your an atheist is that you have not compelling proof that satisfies you that God exists. God cannot give you compelling evidence against you free will - that would destroy your free-will in the process of him giving it. Resolution of the paradox seems to me only to be possible if you willing lay aside you free will (its yours to do with as you please). Then he can show you.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

They were created without sin and knew God. But they weren't free-willed at that point. The point at which choice became possible they became free willed beings. Only after the serpent did his work did that kick in in full.God punished them because they sinned. Not a final punishment - for he had a plan of redemption already to set in place - knowing as he did that things would turn out this way

zzzzzz

You didn't include the 'to atheists' bit earlier. Had you done so then your statement would have included that which makes it clear that you were being totally subjective. It appeared you were attempting to sound objective. Objectively he does stand out from the crowd.Any candidates who would usurp Jesus as the most notable and studied person (myth, if you prefer) in history yet?

Double postEdited by iano, : Double post

In effect the serpent enabled a choice to be made. Adam and Eve had no reason to disobey God. And God didn't cause the situation. Satan fell in the same way - own choice - hated God and what bore his image and set out to destroy. Satan laid an alternative out to obeying God. Choice arose. Adam and Eve chose. There are two types in the world. Those who believe God exists but disbelieve him when he says how it is they are to be redeemed from their position as slaves to sin. Knowing God exists isn't enough (modelled in the bible by the Jews)The other type - which is being discussed here is the person who doesn't believe God exists at all. The atheist/agnostic/non-God Religion (modelled in the bible by the gentiles)The latter are they who are in focus in the thread.

Name another person in history who is more prominant and had more impact than him. Encylopedia Britannica has an entry on him running to 30,000 words. I'm sure he is more prominant in Wiki than anyone else. Google has spoken already today.Gallingly, atheists add to that prominance by spending lots of time talking about him - even if it is only to argue against his existance.