- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
30 Apr 16
Originally posted by SuzianneI reject the idea that any god/s exist.
And the FSM is said to only have a colander, which adherents substitutionally use as a strikingly unusual headpiece, but I *do* reject him by not believing in him. Surely you can see the similarity here? I find it interesting that atheists can state loudly and plainly that they do not believe in God (which seems obvious by the etymology of the word [i]ath ...[text shortened]... because of the message this sends to anyone who thinks about it for a sufficient amount of time.
To reject the god itself [or any deal/offer it supposedly makes] requires that that god exists
[or at least that I believe that it does] which by definition as an atheist is a position I do not
hold.
You could argue that this is a mere semantic difference, but to me it goes to the heart of what
you don't get about my/our beliefs.
IF your god did exist and IF I also believed that your god existed [as described] then I would
'reject your god' as being evil [among other things].
But as your god does not exist and as I don't believe that your god exists then I merely reject
the idea of your god. Which is not the same thing.
30 Apr 16
Originally posted by SuzianneClearly your understanding of English differs from mine. How can you reject someone that doesn't exist? It doesn't make sense. It is also notable that the people who disagree with me about the meaning of the word all have a religious agenda in mind.
And the FSM is said to only have a colander, which adherents substitutionally use as a strikingly unusual headpiece, but I *do* reject him by not believing in him.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29254
Originally posted by SuzianneI don't believe in you Suzianne, but please don't take that as rejection. 😛
And the FSM is said to only have a colander, which adherents substitutionally use as a strikingly unusual headpiece, but I *do* reject him by not believing in him. Surely you can see the similarity here? I find it interesting that atheists can state loudly and plainly that they do not believe in God (which seems obvious by the etymology of the word [i]ath ...[text shortened]... because of the message this sends to anyone who thinks about it for a sufficient amount of time.
I think a more interesting question is why theists feel the need to view atheists as having 'rejected' God and in so doing completely misunderstand its meaning in this context. - Again, I can only repeat that I reserve rejection for something I actually believe in, something tangible and there to 'be rejected.' In short, a theist can reject God, an atheist can't. (Although as Googlefudge stated, I do reject the idea of God).
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29254
30 Apr 16
Originally posted by chaney3Would you argue that I have rejected Santa Claus because I don't believe in him? Or have I simply rejected the idea of Santa Claus existing? - The distinction is important as rejecting a Santa Claus I believe in may result in me getting no presents.
Definition of 'reject'
verb: dismiss as inadequate, inappropriate, or not to one's taste.
noun: a person or thing dismissed as failing to meet standards or satisfy tastes.
Maybe 'not believing' in God and/or Jesus is a form of rejection.
30 Apr 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeAccording to the definition, it seems that the 'rejecting' is part of the believing or not-believing process. The end result of the process is the dismissal. If you believed in Santa Claus, and knew that presents were on the way......rejection would likely not be a part of that process.
Would you argue that I have rejected Santa Claus because I don't believe in him? Or have I simply rejected the idea of Santa Claus existing? - The distinction is important as rejecting a Santa Claus I believe in may result in me getting no presents.
What's interesting though, is that people can comfortably reject Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, etc., but when that specific word is used in the case of God......nobody wants to touch it.
30 Apr 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat a load of bull ... !!
.. no one born between the time of Adam and the last person of mankind will wind up in hell on account of sin....
Let me know if you want me to quote some passages of those who are going to end up in the Lake of Fire even though they accepted Christ with their mouth... starting with Judas Iscariot to the many many false prophets and teachers who just call 'Lord,Lord ... " with their mouth.
Depart from me is what these jokers will hear from Christ.
Your doctrine is not of Christ and if you proclaim such a doctrine then neither are you one of His.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29254
30 Apr 16
Originally posted by chaney3Because an atheist knows that a theist will read too much into it. (Some theists will even view such rejection as justification for eternal suffering in the fires of hell.....Enter Hinds).
What's interesting though, is that people can comfortably reject Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, etc., but when that specific word is used in the case of God......nobody wants to touch it.[/b]
If an atheist was to 'say' they rejected God, they would mean that they didn't believe such a God existed. A theist however would 'hear' that an atheist had willfully chosen to shun God and live a life without Him. (Even though, for an atheist, shunning something that doesn't exist is a nonsense).
30 Apr 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI notice that you have excluded the first half of my post. What is your opinion regarding the fact that 'non-belief' in God is part of a process....in which the end result is 'dismissal', or rejection, based on the definition of rejection that I already posted.
Because an atheist knows that a theist will read too much into it. (Some theists will even view such rejection as justification for eternal suffering in the fires of hell.....Enter Hinds).
If an atheist was to 'say' they rejected God, they would mean that they didn't believe such a God existed. A theist however would 'hear' that an atheist had wil ...[text shortened]... without Him. (Even though, for an atheist, shunning something that doesn't exist is a nonsense).
Keep in mind that I initially asked Freaky about this because in Freaky's post, it was claimed that nobody goes to hell on account of sin....but only rejection of the gift of Jesus, and we both have asked what determines rejection.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29254
30 Apr 16
Originally posted by chaney3I answered the second point in your post as it began with the words 'What's interesting though....' which I inferred to mean that your first point wasn't interesting and therefore didn't require addressing.
I notice that you have excluded the first half of my post. What is your opinion regarding the fact that 'non-belief' in God is part of a process....in which the end result is 'dismissal', or rejection, based on the definition of rejection that I already posted.
Keep in mind that I initially asked Freaky about this because in Freaky's post, it was claimed ...[text shortened]... in....but only rejection of the gift of Jesus, and we both have asked what determines rejection.
(In all seriousness I have already addressed your first point at least twice in this thread and see no point simply rewording it again. Rejection is a loaded theist term. I simply do not believe God exists and don't see how I can reject a gift that has never been presented to me. - And before anyone pipes in with 'the bible' or 'the Gospels' I have seen or heard nothing that convinces they are anything other than human constructs).
Originally posted by chaney3And one believes or disbelieves an idea not a thing or person. Thus one rejects the idea or claim and not the object of the idea or claim.
According to the definition, it seems that the 'rejecting' is part of the believing or not-believing process.
What's interesting though, is that people can comfortably reject Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, etc.,
Who do you know that had 'comfortably rejected Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? I for one would never phrase it that way as to me that would imply I believed in them but didn't want their presents. I don't believe in them, I do want their presents.
but when that specific word is used in the case of God......nobody wants to touch it.
As Ghost of Duke says, theists are trying very hard to play a definition game ie they use a word as a label in the false belief that in doing so they have created certain attributes in the subject of that label - or more commonly they play the definition game purely for reasons of deception ie they use a word as a label in the hope of deceiving listeners into jumping to the wrong conclusion from the label.
30 Apr 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadI will remind that I was initially asking FreakyKBH about the comment that nobody goes to hell due to sin because of the sacrifice of Jesus, but they can if they 'reject' the gift....from the post on page 13. Ghost of a Duke had also asked about rejection with his question "how do you quantify rejection"? So far, no response from FreakyKBH.
And one believes or disbelieves an idea not a thing or person. Thus one rejects the idea or claim and not the object of the idea or claim.
[b]What's interesting though, is that people can comfortably reject Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, etc.,
Who do you know that had 'comfortably rejected Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? I for one would never phrase ...[text shortened]... a label in the hope of deceiving listeners into jumping to the wrong conclusion from the label.[/b]
Question for you though: does it really matter to you if it turns out that rejecting God, and not believing in God could be considered equal in God's eyes? That the mincing of words is irrelevant.
30 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by chaney3I am an atheist and don't believe in God, so I guess you could say it doesn't matter to me what you think God might think. The mincing of words is irrelevant when it comes to what a non-existent being might think. It is not so irrelevant when theists base arguments on minced words, or keep repeating statements based on minced words with the intent to deceive.
Question for you though: does it really matter to you if it turns out that rejecting God, and not believing in God could be considered equal in God's eyes? That the mincing of words is irrelevant.
In summary: I don't care how God uses the word, but God isn't a poster in this forum.
30 Apr 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadOkay, point taken.
I am an atheist and don't believe in God, so I guess you could say it doesn't matter to me what you think God might think. The mincing of words is irrelevant when it comes to what a non-existent being might think. It is not so irrelevant when theists base arguments on minced words, or keep repeating statements based on minced words with the intent to deceive.
In summary: I don't care how God uses the word, but God isn't a poster in this forum.
I notice that you are the first one who responded to the OP, noting that you read the Gospels. As you are an atheist, do you believe that the Bible is all man made writings? Did you at one point believe any of it?
Just curious, hope you don't mind the questions.