That doesn’t relate to belief. A christian will deny miracles done by many other gods and prophets, and yet wonder why an atheist does not believe in the God of the Bible or the prophets in the Bible. I think it is worth pointing out that theists also reject claims of miracles and existence of other gods.
That doesn’t change the fact that many christians deny the existence of greek gods and don’t believe in the claims of miracles and prophesy from other religions. For example, I would suspect that you don’t believe in Joseph Smith’s claims of the supernatural source for the Book of Mormon, nor the legitimacy of the Koran.
I’m a Christian and I don’t. Indeed, any Christian who has read the Bible to the point of familiarity shouldn’t wonder at all why an atheist does not believe in God or the prophets.
And why is that relevant? Lots of doctors of modern medicine reject other types of medical practices, both ancient and present day. People discriminate based on what they consider true and untrue on a regular basis. It’s no surprise that theists do likewise.
Same with you. Yet I’m a theist and you are an atheist. So what? Our shared rejection of Joseph Smith’s claims does nothing to change that.
I know someone who rejects blood letting of bad humours, all astrology, and all vaccinations. He says that he rejects one more pseudoscience than I do. So what?
I don’t think it’s an argument at all. It’s an analogy intended to let you see how atheists view the world, and note that you can understand atheists by seeing that you view parts of it in the same way. One can ask why you don’t believe in Thor, which might be some of the same reasons others don’t believe in YHWH.
It’s akin to the answer to the question “What’s it like to be dead?”, which points out that you’re dead in all places but one right now. What’s it like for you in Nepal right now? That’s what it’s like to be dead.
I don’t “believe in” Thor because Thor is a deity-description (that is, a particular set of attributes) which does not conform to the set of attributes I apply to God/Elohim. In contrast, atheists’ disagreements with Christian theists are not over what particular set of attributes are valid.
Whether one calls it an argument or an analogy, it simply restates something we already know: atheists don’t affirm belief in any deity.
I think is is, actually. The difference seems to be in how we judge whether a set of attributes is valid. Atheists (well, some of them) go by whether the entailments of those attributes accord with observed data. You seem to go by whether they fit what you want to see in a god, if I’m understanding you right.
It may be, based on your statement, that I’m wrong, and that your reasons for not believing in Thor would give you no insight on why I don’t believe in YHWH.
I have yet to meet an Atheist who can say to me (Unitarian Universalist)… YOUR God is MY God… because it has very little to do with the Bible.
Atheists are very fair that way. They reject ANY style or kind of God.
Well, that makes sense, as an atheist wouldn’t have a god. I’ll admit that some unitarians I’ve met seem not to have a god either. What are you trying to say here?
Basic misunderstanding of what the God would look like. God in the most common understanding is the underlying reality, a being of pure actuality. This is a metaphysical claim based on the work of Aristotelian-Thomistic Philosophy, as well as of the works of other scholastics like St. Augustine, Suarez, Scotus or Leibniz. Science itself can´t address this issue, because it itself relies on unprovable metaphysical claims which have to be assumed prior to making science work. Especially the presupposition of causality and the Principle of sufficient reason go very close or even, if the arguments hold up, affirm God as he´s conceived by the traditional monotheistic religions. This has nothing to do with ID or Paley´s Watchmaker, both concepts rejected by the Catholic and Orthodox Chruch and by the vast majority of monotheists.
Aquinas for example is the “official” philosopher of Catholicism and summed his arguments up in the Summa Theologica. In there he presents a longer form of his Five Ways and the necessary divine attributes following from a being of pure actuality.
And for everyone, Atheism itself is a metaphysical claim which has to make assumptions. The idea that it is merely a rejection of belief in a God . Claiming so is a sign of not having examined the assumptions one has to make to arrive at the own conclusion. Here is an important summary I got send a couple of days ago and I urge you to read it.
The theist believes he has demonstrated that metaphysics necessitates a deity by arguing “it is necessary for there to be a deity.” The refutation of this positive statement is another positive statement, “it is possible for there to be no ultimate deity”.
He can’t be serious.
So are you saying that you’ve made a first conclusion that some god exists, and then deciding that God/Elohim has the characteristics which you would expect of such an entity?
If you are talking about things like Jacob’s dreams, they do happen.
Some people interpret these events through a materialist framework and explain them based on Psychology, coincidences etc.
Others interpret them (or atleast some of these incidents) as involving Spiritual beings.
I usually keep an open mind before coming to any conclusions.
These things have been recorded to have happened. There is the ressurection too.
I think records of such events wouldn’t be enough for you. You would probably have to see it for yourself or experience it yourself?
I have a friend who had acute short sightedness to the point she was squinting all the time who got healed and does not use specs anymore. Would that count?
Though i have to tell you, i wear specs myself.
Events like the Holocaust can happen in a world where human beings have free will.
A world where every action is micromanaged. and people are forced to conform to an omniscient beings Standards of "goodness"would be evil. It would be sentient beings subjected to abject slavery.
The fact that Human beings have the freedom to act according to their own will and Angels have the ability to rebel against God and fight against him for so long (even though he could wipe them all out in a millisecond) is an endorsement of the idea that God is omnibenovelent.
Why does it seem trivial and petty.
You are the one who mentioned them in the first place.
The fact is, you cant really use the scientific method to prove or disprove Gods existence. All your arguments are subjective.
The ladder to heaven was a dream, but wrestling with God, or an angel, was not. Perhaps you think the text is not to be taken literally?
You mean there are stories about them happening. The point, which you may have forgotten, is that we don’t see them happening today.
That sentence leans heavily on the word “records”. If by that you mean stories that have been written down, we have records of many things that didn’t happen. George Washington is alleged to have chopped down a cherry tree, for example. Do you think he did? The stories of miracles are of equal provenance; worse, really, because we know Parson Weems actually wrote the book attributed to him.
No, because eyes change naturally. I was once also very short-sighted, but my distance vision is now just fine; now I’m far-sighted. Like I said, show me a regrown leg.
Yes, that’s one of the common excuses, but it’s nothing more than an excuse. If God won’t intervene to stop the Holocaust, he won’t intervene in anything. Yet you suppose he repeatedly intervened to free the Hebrews from Egypt. What happened to free will there?
I refuse to answer until you think about it, just a little bit.
Are you sure? Of course, probability calculations do have a role in science; just not the sole role.
Sure, but wrestling with the angel happened when he was alone and there were no witnesses.
All Jacob had to show for it was a broken hip.
Do you think it’s more significant evidence than a dream?
This incident happened over a period of a day.
The Hebrews left of their own free will. He had a particular purpose with the Hebrews.
I don’t see how the concept of free will was violated in the story.
