Atheists with subjective unbelief, not objective

[mfblume]

Concluding things from a subjective basis versus an objective one is a contrast of something affecting one personally, as though through a hurt, as opposed to logical and purely non-subjective study. Conclusions arrived at objectively are not tied to emotional or personal reactions to things. Therefore, subjective conclusions are faulty, to say the least. Subjective conclusions are reached and therefore stained from the perspective of a a personal BIAS, that otherwise would not have existed, and would otherwise, therefore, not have caused a person to make the conclusions they made. I apply this some of the famous atheists.

I saw this today on the internet, speaking of how many famous atheists did not arrive at their conclusions through objective reasoning that God is not real, but primarily because a tragedy occurred in their lives that embittered them, more than anything.

Many through the ages have abandoned their faith in God because of the presence of evil, pain, and suffering in their lives or in the lives of those close to them, or even in the lives of those they don't know. In 1851, Charles Darwin's life set him on the road to unbelief when his oldest daughter, Annie, fell ill. On April 23 of that year, she died at the tender age of ten. Darwin was devastated. Although his wife was a devout believer in God and Christianity, with Annie's death, Darwin no longer believed in God. Samuel Clemens (otherwise known as Mark Twain) became embittered against God after the death, in 1896, of his favorite daughter, Suzy. In the mid-1960s, a devoutly religious young man from Chattanooga, Tennessee was a role model for all of his classmates. He led a prayer group, and planned to become a foreign missionary -- until his sister died of leukemia and his father committed suicide. The boy's belief in God collapsed, and, as a result he became one of America's most outspoken unbelievers, humanists, and pro-abortion advocates. That boy's name was Ted Turner, founder of CNN, the Turner Broadcasting System, and other well-known media outlets.

(http://biblestudyweb.org/radiowhybadthingshappen.htm)

It is like most atheists see things occur and, by what true believers know as misunderstanding, cannot fathom God allowing such things. So they go on a vengeance against God's existence. Had they TRULY come to atheism in a reasonable manner, it would not have been due to some tragedy that occurred that they think God should not allow, but rather an objective conclusion reached by purely non-emotional influences that have nothing to do with a tragedy occurring, etc. And yet these men emphasize REASON and LOGIC when in reality they became atheists for no LOGICAL nor purely REASONABLE means -- they came to atheism by EMOTIONAL and SUBJECTIVE reasons.

Thoughts? It's as if they actually believe God DOES exist, and simply want to make Him hurt, like they hurt.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Concluding things from a subjective basis versus an objective one is a contrast of something affecting one personally, as though through a hurt, as opposed to logical and purely non-subjective study. Conclusions arrived at objectively are not tied to emotional or personal reactions to things. Therefore, subjective conclusions are faulty, to say the least. Subjective conclusions are reached and therefore stained from the perspective of a a personal BIAS, that otherwise would not have existed, and would otherwise, therefore, not have caused a person to make the conclusions they made. I apply this some of the famous atheists.

I saw this today on the internet, speaking of how many famous atheists did not arrive at their conclusions through objective reasoning that God is not real, but primarily because a tragedy occurred in their lives that embittered them, more than anything.

Many through the ages have abandoned their faith in God because of the presence of evil, pain, and suffering in their lives or in the lives of those close to them, or even in the lives of those they don't know. In 1851, Charles Darwin's life set him on the road to unbelief when his oldest daughter, Annie, fell ill. On April 23 of that year, she died at the tender age of ten. Darwin was devastated. Although his wife was a devout believer in God and Christianity, with Annie's death, Darwin no longer believed in God. Samuel Clemens (otherwise known as Mark Twain) became embittered against God after the death, in 1896, of his favorite daughter, Suzy. In the mid-1960s, a devoutly religious young man from Chattanooga, Tennessee was a role model for all of his classmates. He led a prayer group, and planned to become a foreign missionary -- until his sister died of leukemia and his father committed suicide. The boy's belief in God collapsed, and, as a result he became one of America's most outspoken unbelievers, humanists, and pro-abortion advocates. That boy's name was Ted Turner, founder of CNN, the Turner Broadcasting System, and other well-known media outlets.

(http://biblestudyweb.org/radiowhybadthingshappen.htm)

It is like most atheists see things occur and, by what true believers know as misunderstanding, cannot fathom God allowing such things. So they go on a vengeance against God's existence. Had they TRULY come to atheism in a reasonable manner, it would not have been due to some tragedy that occurred that they think God should not allow, but rather an objective conclusion reached by purely non-emotional influences that have nothing to do with a tragedy occurring, etc. And yet these men emphasize REASON and LOGIC when in reality they became atheists for no LOGICAL nor purely REASONABLE means -- they came to atheism by EMOTIONAL and SUBJECTIVE reasons.

Thoughts? It's as if they actually believe God DOES exist, and simply want to make Him hurt, like they hurt.

It does seem that way for some, and maybe it is. But I think, for most, the logic goes more like this:

If God exists, then He would not allow injustice and tragedy to happen.

Injustice and tragedy happen.

Therefore, God does not exist.

The first premise, of course, is up for debate. You guys would argue that it isn't true; that God could very well allow such things, or for some reason has to allow them. And you could be right. That's one reason I don't think of myself as an atheist.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Timmy

It does seem that way for some, and maybe it is. But I think, for most, the logic goes more like this:

If God exists, then He would not allow injustice and tragedy to happen.

Injustice and tragedy happen.

Therefore, God does not exist.

The first premise, of course, is up for debate. You guys would argue that it isn't true; that God could very well allow such things, or for some reason has to allow them. And you could be right. That's one reason I don't think of myself as an atheist.

Very good points, Timmy!

[Amanah]

I know very few atheists.
One I do know is actually one of my best friends at work.
He has a very strong dislike for Christianity.
I don't think it’s because of a hurt that he has experienced,
I think he just perceives it to be anti intellectual and anti scientific.

[Timmy]

Also, it troubles a lot of believers (and some others, I suppose) that some atheists are so, um, evangelical () about their unbelief. If they don't believe in God, why do they care? Why not just let everyone who wants to believe, believe? That's a fair point. To a point!

But I think it should be obvious that these militant atheists think that belief in God is a net detriment to humanity, so they want it to stop! Who can blame them, really? Even you guys would agree that wrong beliefs about God are detrimental. The Bible even warns about that, many times. Well, atheists are just carrying that warning a little too far (you guys would say).

[mfblume]

A person ought to promote what a person genuinely believes. Be it Atheism or Theism. It's a free world. But my point is that some famous atheists are not wholly honest but biased as a basis for their efforts.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by mfblume

A person ought to promote what a person genuinely believes. Be it Atheism or Theism. It's a free world. But my point is that some famous atheists are not wholly honest but biased as a basis for their efforts.

Not sure I'd call it dishonest. I think observations of the way things are can and should play a valid role in decided what to believe. You guys (some of you) do it all the time!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I know very few atheists.
One I do know is actually one of my best friends at work.
He has a very strong dislike for Christianity.
I don't think it’s because of a hurt that he has experienced,
I think he just perceives it to be anti intellectual and anti scientific.

That would be an objectively based atheist.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I know very few atheists.
One I do know is actually one of my best friends at work.
He has a very strong dislike for Christianity.
I don't think it’s because of a hurt that he has experienced,
I think he just perceives it to be anti intellectual and anti scientific.

There is a lot of truth to that last sentence. The church has always been dragged kicking and screaming into each major scientific discovery about how the world/Universe works. Just look at how so many are still insisting that the Earth (and entire cosmos) is 6-7 thousand years old.