Christians often try to justify the punishment of unbelievers with the idea that they CHOOSE not reject God but i've never seen a refute to this: [Spirituality & Religion]
The atheist does not [i]reject[/i] god because rejection is a willful act. Atheists simply aren't [i]convinced[/i] that god exists and they can no more [i]choose[/i] to be convinced than you can as a believer.
And you can prove this to yourself right here and now. Observe:
Decide [i]right now[/i] that you are in fact convinced that Santa Claus exists.... ...were you successful? No? Then you've just proven to yourself that belief is not a choice. You cannot [i]choose[/i] to be convinced by that which you find unconvincing.
So maybe you still think un-believers [i]deserve[/i] to burn forever for simply not believing but at least don't try to justify the punishment by victim blaming.
It's an "if I can do so can you" mentality. Not realizing people are not all equal and what convinces one will not convince another. Apparently God is going to burn you for him not making you equal. How dare you not be convinced to the same standard>:(
Atheists can't reject God because they're already dead in the ground under their headstones. Skeptics reject God by choosing not to believe in Him even though they claim that they are not convinced that He lives. They are without excuse being that God, Yahweh, has already proven Himself to mankind and that His grand design of the heavens and the earth is clear evidence that He lives. This is Truth that God established long ago and no one can alter it or change it.
1) An atheist is someone who does not believe or disbelieves in the existence of a deity. That’s it. Many such living people exist. You can say they replace god in their lives with other things but they do not believe these things are gods and so they are indeed atheists. Moving on.
2) God has not proven his existence because if he had then by virtue of his omnipotence he would have succeeded and everyone would know he was real. Since everyone does not know he's real, he either has not proven himself or is not omnipotent. Those are your only two choices🤷♀️
3) You've only repeated the claim under scrutiny. You have offered no argument. If you can make an [i]argument[/i] for that claim then i'd be happy to hear it.
Why don't you begin by sharing the results of the exercise that i assigned. I'll keep asking you about it so you might as well just share it right off the bat and get it over with it. Although i suppose if you ignore it, that will be an answer in and of itself.
