Many/most world religions actually assert a God that is much more more like the God I describe than you might think.
But not like yours in the key aspects I noted—those aspects imply a lack of any need for religious practices.
Arguments against God usually don’t focus on properties of God specific to a personal God (the problem of evil is a noteworthy exception).
My impression is that arguments that advocates of atheism are making to the public (as opposed to academia) are largely against the idea of a personal God. These atheists would just shug their shoulders at your stance.
I strongly assert that what theists really can’t let go of (even the ones who believe in a personal God) is the idea of a meaningful/consistent universe.
I assert that what theists really can’t let go of is a social setting and their place within it.
Many/most world religions actually assert a God that is much more more like the God I describe than you might think.
But not like yours in the key aspects I noted—those aspects imply a lack of any need for religious practices.
I’m been writing too quickly. I meant that many/most world religions assert this God theologically—it is not espoused in popular culture. The reasons for this is that religions like to be accessible, whereas this God is rather abstract for most people. (I know a Catholic priest who winces every time someone says Christ died for their sins.) Also organized religion does want to wield control. So the churches themselves may be huge dogmatic monsters in direct opposition to the theological basis of their faith. (For example, Jesus is described as having been against organized religion and the building of any churches, yet organized Christian religions completely ignore this.)
These atheists would just shrug their shoulders at your stance.
Please do. It’s not the response I’ve been receiving.
I assert that what theists really can’t let go of is a social setting and their place within it.
We should look into why theists are so resistant to conversion. We disagree, but I think we may make some headway when we compare the evidence we have for our priors.
But not like yours in the key aspects I noted—those aspects imply a lack of any need for religious practices.
My impression is that arguments that advocates of atheism are making to the public (as opposed to academia) are largely against the idea of a personal God. These atheists would just shug their shoulders at your stance.
I assert that what theists really can’t let go of is a social setting and their place within it.
I’m been writing too quickly. I meant that many/most world religions assert this God theologically—it is not espoused in popular culture. The reasons for this is that religions like to be accessible, whereas this God is rather abstract for most people. (I know a Catholic priest who winces every time someone says Christ died for their sins.) Also organized religion does want to wield control. So the churches themselves may be huge dogmatic monsters in direct opposition to the theological basis of their faith. (For example, Jesus is described as having been against organized religion and the building of any churches, yet organized Christian religions completely ignore this.)
Please do. It’s not the response I’ve been receiving.
We should look into why theists are so resistant to conversion. We disagree, but I think we may make some headway when we compare the evidence we have for our priors.