"Why Do Men Reject God?"

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Why Do Men Reject God?"

I suspect that you will be hard pressed to find anyone who admits to rejecting God whilst believing in his existence. So your thread title is badly phrased and I think your later question is therefore better put:

What are some of the other reasons for rejecting the possibility of a Supreme Being and accepting the consequences?

In my case, I reject the possibility of a supreme being purely on evidential grounds ie I see no evidence for such a supreme being and plenty of evidence against the existence of most of the supreme beings that most theists believe in.
It is quite normal to not believe in something for which there is no evidence.

Originally posted by whodey
It all boils down to the condition of our hearts. That's why I don't spend much time debating the existence of God anymore. Some of the most distant people from God that I've met are very religious. Just look at the story of the Children of Israel. They saw God split the sea, bring manna down from heaven, deal out plagues on Egypt, etc., etc., but their hearts were far from him and they built a golden calf to worship in his stead.

"It all boils down to the condition of our hearts."

If by "hearts" you refer to the NT Koine Greek Kardia or mind which assimilate information and circulates thought, we agree.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can anyone substantiate that claim? I am fairly sure that it is untrue.

"Most people in the world, throughout the ages of history, have believed in some concept
of a Supreme Being." -Wayne Jackson

"Can anyone substantiate that claim? I am fairly sure that it is untrue." -twhitehead

Doubtful that Jackson's presumptive claim/premise can be substantiated from hard data.
Do you recall any chapters of human history in which the concept wasn't true?

Originally posted by sonship
Many people are wounded and hurt. To believe in God as something objective "out there" is not that much of a comfort to them. It is only a step in being comforted. You have to believe that God is in order to come forward to God.

But if you just believe that God is and do not come forward to God to have oil poured on your wounds and healing of your hurts, ...[text shortened]... are of a generation of push button instant gratification. And a verbose Internet post is boring.

"This does not describe every possible rationale people have for rejecting God's existence. But it explains many. They are hurt and bitter for something that happened in their lives. If God had been real it should not have happened. This is not an easy attitude to overcome." -sonship (italics mine)

This behavioral nexus is real and operative subliminally in all of us in varying degrees. Emotions are powerful and often intimidate/hen peck the designed authority of our rational minds. Worst decisions we've all ever made were emotional.

Originally posted by deenny
Is it not possible that many people just looked at the evidence before them and decided that god does not exist. Nothing to do with being bitter or "rejecting". Just saying what they see.

"Is it not possible that many people just looked at the evidence before them and decided that god does not exist. Nothing to do with being bitter or "rejecting". Just saying what they see." -deeney

Assuming you're responding to the Original Post, I agree with your observation: academic rejection = negative decisions.

Originally posted by googlefudge
"Why Do Men Reject God?"

Because people who accept god are misogynist A-holes who ignore or write off 50%
of the worlds population?


Learn to use gender neutral language FFS.



And you are asking the wrong question.

To reject gods requires that you believe in gods existence.

Atheists don't believe gods exist.


There are many many ...[text shortened]... al reasons doesn't
mean that they have not learnt about and accepted rational arguments since.

"Why Do Men Reject God?"

"Because people who accept god are misogynist A-holes who ignore or write off 50%
of the worlds population? [Unfortunately, many people "Reject God" because of the unseemly behavior of people who haven't.]


Learn to use gender neutral language FFS.



And you are asking the wrong question.

To reject gods requires that you believe in gods existence. [or even the possibility]

Atheists don't believe gods exist. [Understood; however all who haven't yet embraced Christianity are not necessarily Atheist. Their jury's simply still out.]


There are many many reasons that people have for not believing in gods. [Such as?]

Some are good sound rational and evidence based reasons... Some are not.

The fact that SOME people lack a belief in gods for bad reasons doesn't mean that there
are not good ones. [Good point; care to delineate the different criteria?]
And the fact that some people initially questioned their faith for irrational reasons doesn't
mean that they have not learnt about and accepted rational arguments since." -googlefudge

[Comments enclosed in your graphics worthy wide open spaces, rambling text.]

Originally posted by googlefudge
It also depends on how you define 'supreme being'?

People have believed in gods and spirits, for as long as we have records.

But monotheism with it's singular ultimate being is relatively new.

I think we can agree that as far as we can tell, people have pretty much always had
supernatural beliefs about the world including the existence of powe ...[text shortened]... ho are claiming the existence
of gods, have the burden of proof for the claim they are making.

"But monotheism with it's singular ultimate being is relatively new." -googlefudge

Any sense of the time frames pertaining to "relatively new"?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"But monotheism with it's singular ultimate being is relatively new." -googlefudge

Any sense of the time frames pertaining to "relatively new"?

Well if we are saying at the moment that recognisably modern humans date back around
200,000 years (and this is an inherently vague and disputed number as quite what you
define as 'human' is not a simple or trivial question to answer.) then you are looking at
events spread over a 200,000 year time-line. With the birth of civilisation about 10 thousand
years ago.

The birth of the modern monotheistic (Abrahamic) religions dates to something like 6~7
thousand years ago, and widespread adoption to less than 2 thousand years ago with the
rise of Christianity and Islam.

Which means that on this time-line belief in a singular 'supreme being' has occupied significantly
less than 1% of our existence, and less than 20% of the time since the advent of civilisation.

And during a large part, if not all, of that time a majority of people on the planet were probably
polytheists. (looking particularly at populations in Asia, particularly China and the Indian sub-continent)

I don't know, but its possible that there has never been a time when a majority of people on the planet
were monotheists believing in a supreme being.

But even if you only look at the west and middle-east you are still looking at monotheism being
dominant for less than 1% of our history and 20% of the lifetime of civilisation.


On these scales, monotheism is indeed recent, and quite possibly fleeting.

Give it another few thousand years (or less) and monotheism might have all but vanished.


You have to remember that the earth is 4.5 BILLION years old.
Life has existed for around 4 billion years, and complex life for 500 Million years.

Our entire existence, let alone history, has occurred in the blink of a geological eye.
And things which seem to us permanent and unchanging are often fleeting and ephemeral on these
time-scales.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well if we are saying at the moment that recognisably modern humans date back around
200,000 years (and this is an inherently vague and disputed number as quite what you
define as 'human' is not a simple or trivial question to answer.) then you are looking at
events spread over a 200,000 year time-line. With the birth of civilisation about 10 thous ...[text shortened]... ich seem to us permanent and unchanging are often fleeting and ephemeral on these
time-scales.

"The birth of the modern monotheistic (Abrahamic) religions dates to something like 6~7
thousand years ago with the
rise of Christianity and Islam.

Which means that on this time-line belief in a singular 'supreme being' has occupied significantly
less than 1% of our existence, and less than 20% of the time since the advent of civilisation."

Within this time frame your estimate of 1% seems exceedingly small. What percentage would you estimate as of 2013?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"The birth of the modern monotheistic (Abrahamic) religions dates to something like 6~7
thousand years ago with the
rise of Christianity and Islam.

Which means that on this time-line belief in a singular 'supreme being' has occupied significantly
less than 1% of our existence, and less than 20% of the time since the advent of civilisation."

...[text shortened]... rame your estimate of 1% seems exceedingly small. What percentage would you estimate as of 2013?

<1%


I am not sure you have quite got me so I will try to clarify.

I am assuming that humans have existed in their modern form for 200,000 years.

So that is our time frame for human history.

Of the three major monotheistic religions only Christianity and Islam have gained
a significant following in terms of percentage of world population.

And both did so in the last 2000 years.

So given that, monotheism, and thus belief in a singular supreme being, has been
dominant (if it has ever been) for less than 2,000 years out of 200,000.
Which works out at less than 1%

On a time scale of 200,000 years, the last 2,000 is recent.

Hence my comment that monotheism and thus belief in a singular supreme being is
a recent phenomena.



Even if you restrict yourself to only the last 10,000 years by starting counting from the
early birth of civilisation then you are still talking about monotheism being dominant for
less than the last 20% of our history.

And given the number of polytheists and non-theists in Asia during that time frame I am
not sure if monotheism has ever achieved even a simple majority of people as believers.

We could probably work it out if sufficiently motivated, but it's not really relevant to the
point. Which is that claiming that the majority of people throughout history have believed
in a singular supreme being is wrong.

And even then, as I said up front, It doesn't matter anyway, as Argumentum Ad Populum is
a logical fallacy anyway.

Originally posted by Pianoman1

[b]"Why Do Men Reject God?"

A Loaded question, GB! To reject something implies that there must be something there in the first place to cast off or refuse. Atheists do not "reject" God; they do not believe in his existence.

"A contentious statement! Also, Since most of the world's population is not Christian one might suggest it is unreasonable ...[text shortened]... view that without substantial evidence, agnosticism is the only intelligent and logical stance.[/b]

* "Why Do Men Reject God?"

"A Loaded question, GB! To reject something implies that there must be something there in the first place to cast off or refuse. Atheists do not "reject" God; they do not believe in his existence."

> Agreed. The author assumes an accepted premise in developing his theme. However, isn't disbelief tantamount to rejection? Also, isn't it true that there are those who reject God without thinking of or labeling themselves as Atheists?

* "Most people in the world, throughout the ages of history, have believed in some concept of a Supreme Being."

It is entirely natural to want to explain the Universe in terms of a "Supreme Being". Since time immemorial this has been the easiest option. Many people, I do not include you, are simply not inclined to debate the matter too deeply, and are happy with the idea of God.

> Insightful; there is a deeply seated intellectual need to "explain the Universe" in whatever terms seem effective. Rejection doesn't occur as an event; much rather as an ongoing process, heavily influenced by relationships and circumstances.

* "Since unbelief is neither reasonable nor the norm, one cannot but wonder why some people become atheists" (author*)

A contentious statement! Also, Since most of the world's population is not Christian one might suggest it is unreasonable and not the norm to believe in Jesus."

> That sentence alone almost resulted in doing this thread in a different manner (I'll comment further). It's naïve at best.

"It seems to me to be entirely reasonable to hold the view that without substantial evidence, agnosticism is the only intelligent and logical stance."

> Intellectual, Psychological, Emotional, Physical and Age Related Comfort Zones play significant roles in the decision. These vary between individuals as well as within an individual's lifetime. It's a crucial decision with eternal consequences.

Originally posted by googlefudge
<1%


I am not sure you have quite got me so I will try to clarify.

I am assuming that humans have existed in their modern form for 200,000 years.

So that is our time frame for human history.

Of the three major monotheistic religions only Christianity and Islam have gained
a significant following in terms of percentage of world population. ...[text shortened]... said up front, It doesn't matter anyway, as Argumentum Ad Populum is
a logical fallacy anyway.

"Even if you restrict yourself to only the last 10,000 years by starting counting from the
early birth of civilisation then you are still talking about monotheism being dominant for
less than the last 20% of our history."

Haven't looked it up recently but seem to remember reading the worldwide Christian population was in the vicinity of 40%.

Originally posted by Penguin

[b]Given the evidence available, faith is reasonable
No, given the evidence available, faith is widespread. The fact that most people throughout history have believed in something supernatural is only evidence that such belief is common, not that it is reasonable.

“How could I possibly have wound up married to a tyrant? Why had God ...[text shortened]... his is not evidence that magic exists, just that lots of people believed it did.

--- Penguin.

Given the evidence available, faith is reasonable

"No, given the evidence available, faith is widespread. The fact that most people throughout history have believed in something supernatural is only evidence that such belief is common, not that it is reasonable."

> Please define the use of "faith" in context.

How could I possibly have wound up married to a tyrant? Why had God forsaken me?,” she wrote (1996, p. 15)
"Do you have a reference for this? It does not sound as though she was atheist at this point: you are unlikely to place blame on something that you do not believe exists."

> The entire Original Post is enclosed by parenthesis (except for a concluding sentence of mine). Wayne Jackson may well have had additional biographical detail omitted from this article. Causative factor seems mre likely than "blame".

His disbelief, however, was emotional, not intellectual.
"Do you have any evidence for that statement? The quote you have there is totally irrelevant to the statement."

"Asimov is simply stating a logical truth: you can't dis-prove the existence of God in the same way that you can't dis-prove Last-Thursdayism, invisible pink elephants or fairies.

Whether Huxley wanted the world to have meaning or not is irrelevant to whether it actually does."

> Again, I'm not privy to the author's sources. Asimov and Huxley's quotes I found intriguing in a biographical sense.

This is hardly a valid argument for rejecting the vast array of evidence that testifies to the existence of a Supreme Being!
"But the only evidence you have given is that most people through history have believed in magic. As I said at the top, this is not evidence that magic exists, just that lots of people believed it did."

> Please help me to understand where "magic" was stated by the author (and its significance). If it's there, I missed it.
Thanks for your reply. -Bob

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Most people in the world, throughout the ages of history, have believed in some concept
of a Supreme Being." -Wayne Jackson

"Can anyone substantiate that claim? I am fairly sure that it is untrue." -twhitehead

Doubtful that Jackson's presumptive claim/premise can be substantiated from hard data.
Do you recall any chapters of human history in which the concept wasn't true?

You (GB) give a quote making an audacious claim (which presumably
you agree with) and then, when challenged on the veracity of that
claim, you ask for instances when it wasn't true.

You are supporting the claim - you produce evidence!

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b
Haven't looked it up recently but seem to remember reading the worldwide Christian population was in the vicinity of 40%.[/b]

I think the figure is 30% and I reckon that is inflated to include those
that have been christened/baptised (such as I) rather than those that
practise the faith.

(And most of those are Catholics)