Replies

The main point was that she was demanding God perform some stupid little magic trick to prove Himself and earn her belief in Him. In effect, she was saying she would accept a 'god' she could command. Her disbelief was so great she had no rational concept of God.

A person wanting to know God must first believe that He IS.

But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. - Hebrews 11:6

But the one in far worse shape than she was in is the one who understanding God-ness, nevertheless denies that God IS.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Romans 1:20

And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; - Romans 1:28

A true atheist doesn't believe and doesn't mind if you do. He is oblivious.

But one, like Dawkins, who claims to be atheist but obsessively denies God obviously believes that God IS but deplores Him - otherwise he would be insane, i.e. hating someone he says does not exist.

God's Name is I AM.

But one, like Dawkins, who claims to be atheist but obsessively denies God obviously believes that God IS but deplores Him — otherwise he would be insane, i.e. hating someone he says does not exist.

A typical example of the logical cul-de-sac atheists like Dawkins try not to notice. Dawkins is fully aware that God exists. Otherwise, why would he expend so much energy denying Him? There's no point at all to denying something that is non-existent.

God's Name is I AM.

Great posts you two.

Thx.

The main point was that she was demanding God perform some stupid little magic trick to prove Himself and earn her belief in Him. In effect, she was saying she would accept a 'god' she could command.

Yes, I agree, that's asinine, and immature. So many atheists are angry with God for some unexplained reason, and the only thing that would satisfy them would is, as you say, a 'god' they could command, a 'god' who would place himself at their feet.

Her disbelief was so great she had no rational concept of God.

I don't have a rational concept of what God is, but I don't see it as disbelief, rather as agnosis (lack of knowledge). I can't disbelieve something I have no rational concept of. She, on the other hand, seems to have a highly irrational notion of what God is and what he "must" do to satisfy her unfounded anger with him.

I, on the other hand, demand nothing from God. I am only saying that if he is to communicate with me he would have to do so in a manner compatible with my human nature.

A person wanting to know God must first believe that He IS (cf Heb 11:6)

It's that a priory leap of faith, as they say. When the LDS make a leap of faith that the Egyptian Plates really were written by God, the Book of Mormon becomes "scripture".

Likewise, once the Muslims make a leap of faith that there is but one God, Allah, and that Mohammad is his messenger, and repeat it to themselves three times, they become "born again" Muslims (the triple repetition of these a priori premsies is the actual process of conversion to Islam) , and the Koran becomes "scripture"!

And once you accept that Jesus is the eternal Logos Incarnate who died on the cross and resurrected on the third day, the New Testament becomes "scripture." Otherwise only the Old Testament is "scripture," etc.

The pattern is the same, the names and scriptures change: one must make the first step by assuming that God exists, i.e. believing a hypothesis.

But the one in far worse shape than she was in is the one who understanding God-ness, nevertheless denies that God IS.

I think they are both in equally bad shape. Anyone who can a priori believe something without knowing what it is cannot possibly know what he or she believes in.

A true atheist doesn't believe and doesn't mind if you do. He is oblivious. But one, like Dawkins, who claims to be atheist but obsessively denies God obviously believes that God IS but deplores Him - otherwise he would be insane, i.e. hating someone he says does not exist.

I think you are absolutely right about a "true atheist" (which I don't believe exists; just as every believer has doubts, so does every atheist; we all know that we are not perfect and that we all believe imperfectly; but some of us can admit it, others can't; so there is an agnostic/atheist in every believer as there is a believer in every agnostic/atheist; we all at some time say "what if")

But as far as Richard Dawkins is concerned, his anger is directed as a man-made God, i.e. the philosophy, teachings of the God man created in different cultures, etc. His criticism is more an attack on human doctrines of God and, more so, and corrupt practices of religion.