"begging the question"

[JM]

The Christian theist takes the biblical definitions and descriptions of God to be true at face value. The atheist rejects these. Both are cases of begging the question. There isn't a justifiable argument for either belief. The atheist simply has nothing to argue against the God of the Bible, though. The Bible is an infallible and inerrant foundation, which is the sole source of knowledge for men. This is presupposed by the Christian theist. As a result, his definition of God cannot be challenged except from Scripture. I reject any natural theological propositions concerning God, and the atheist rejects any biblical propositions concerning God. It's a total impasse until the Holy Spirit regenerates his heart and makes him believe the truth.

I agree [and couldn't have posted it better so I quoted it], do you agree?

 

[Sothenes]

Rom 1:20 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:

If we are without excuse then they are clearly seen.

 

[ArtGuy]

The Christian theist takes the biblical definitions and descriptions of God to be true at face value. The atheist rejects these. Both are cases of begging the question. There isn't a justifiable argument for either belief. The atheist simply has nothing to argue against the God of the Bible, though. The Bible is an infallible and inerrant foundation, which is the sole source of knowledge for men. This is presupposed by the Christian theist. As a result, his definition of God cannot be challenged except from Scripture. I reject any natural theological propositions concerning God, and the atheist rejects any biblical propositions concerning God. It's a total impasse until the Holy Spirit regenerates his heart and makes him believe the truth.

I agree [and couldn't have posted it better so I quoted it], do you agree?

Agree or not, it's hardly an argument that's very convincing to anyone not already assured of its conclusion. It asserts as axiomatic that the Bible is true, and since the Bible assures us there's a God who gave us the Bible, then there must be, because hey - see Axiom #1. It's the textbook definition of circular reasoning, and as such is pretty useless in discussion unless the goal is simply to flagellate in tautological self-assurance.

Maybe I'm just missing the point of the quote though; with what, exactly, are we to be agreeing?

 

[Imagican]

I believe that we are dealing with two views that are deeper than 'just what one believes'.

The athiest has 'rejected' God. In order to reject something, one must admit that it exists to start with. If nothing other than an 'idea', there has to be 'something' to reject. Regardless of those that will indicate that there is no rejection and only denial of existence, this doesn't 'change' the FACT that in this case, it IS rejection.

So, with this in mind, we are left with scriptures that explain the 'wisdom' of men and how 'justified' they can become in their pride through their own wisdom.

There IS hope however. When men who 'truly' seek wisdom for the sake of wisdom alone, it will eventually lead them to the ONLY true wisdom that exists; the Word.

But, remember, there were many deciple of Jesus Himself that turned and walked away from what He had to offer, choosing instead to live their lives 'without' devotion to anything other than 'self'.

 

[Novum]

The athiest has 'rejected' God. In order to reject something, one must admit that it exists to start with. If nothing other than an 'idea', there has to be 'something' to reject. Regardless of those that will indicate that there is no rejection and only denial of existence, this doesn't 'change' the FACT that in this case, it IS rejection.

Absolutely untrue, and easily demonstrated to be false. Consider a thought experiment in which we raised a boy or girl in a controlled environment and ensured that he or she never came across any concepts of religion. He or she would both be an atheist and someone who has not rejected any god - it is not possible to reject that which you do not believe exists.

If that's a little hard for you to swallow, take a more real-world example. Think about the young child of your choice in poverty-stricken central Africa - he or she has almost certainly never heard of Christianity and possibly religion in general. In either case, he or she lacks a belief in the Christian god without any kind of rejection.

Or, if that's still not good enough, I offer myself as evidence. I was raised Jewish, became agnostic around age 13 for a number of years, became atheist at age 18, and have been as such ever since. Not only have I never had a belief in the Christian god, it is clearly untrue to claim that I have somehow "rejected" him - again, I cannot reject that which I do not believe exists.

 

[thessalonian]

The Christian theist takes the biblical definitions and descriptions of God to be true at face value. The atheist rejects these. Both are cases of begging the question. There isn't a justifiable argument for either belief. The atheist simply has nothing to argue against the God of the Bible, though. The Bible is an infallible and inerrant foundation, which is the sole source of knowledge for men. This is presupposed by the Christian theist. As a result, his definition of God cannot be challenged except from Scripture. I reject any natural theological propositions concerning God, and the atheist rejects any biblical propositions concerning God. It's a total impasse until the Holy Spirit regenerates his heart and makes him believe the truth.

I agree [and couldn't have posted it better so I quoted it], do you agree?

Not completely so. The Natural/science and religion should not be in opposition. After all it is God's creation. If one comes to a proper understanding of processes in the natural world they MUST in fact conform to an understanding of God. This arguement tries to cut religion out of the realm of science and I truly do not think you would agree to that. Surely one looks at the great variety and beauty and order and intelligence (i.e. mathematical equations that man did not create) in nature and come to some conclusions. Now the post above says to me that once one concludes t based on these things that there is a God he has not made a scientific conclusion. He is now not a naturalist or a scientist. I disagree completely! He is the ultimate scientist because he is open to a valid conclusion based on the evidence!

 

[thessalonian]

The athiest has 'rejected' God. In order to reject something, one must admit that it exists to start with. If nothing other than an 'idea', there has to be 'something' to reject. Regardless of those that will indicate that there is no rejection and only denial of existence, this doesn't 'change' the FACT that in this case, it IS rejection.

Absolutely untrue, and easily demonstrated to be false. Consider a thought experiment in which we raised a boy or girl in a controlled environment and ensured that he or she never came across any concepts of religion. He or she would both be an atheist and someone who has not rejected any god - it is not possible to reject that which you do not believe exists.

If that's a little hard for you to swallow, take a more real-world example. Think about the young child of your choice in poverty-stricken central Africa - he or she has almost certainly never heard of Christianity and possibly religion in general. In either case, he or she lacks a belief in the Christian god without any kind of rejection.

Or, if that's still not good enough, I offer myself as evidence. I was raised Jewish, became agnostic around age 13 for a number of years, became atheist at age 18, and have been as such ever since. Not only have I never had a belief in the Christian god, it is clearly untrue to claim that I have somehow "rejected" him - again, I cannot reject that which I do not believe exists.

You have heard about him and you deny his existence. That is rejection. / That is not the same as the young child in Africa who has not heard at all of him and therefore has not formed an opinion. I won't judge your rejection except to say that you do in fact reject God. He does exist and so you can in fact reject him. You can reject a brick wall all you want but when you drive your car in to it at 100 miles per hour you are going to know that it exists. God exists whether you reject him or not. Whether you rationalize your rejection as not rejecting him or not.

Blessings

 

[Novum]

You have heard about him and you deny his existence. That is rejection. / That is not the same as the young child in Africa who has not heard at all of him and therefore has not formed an opinion. I won't judge your rejection except to say that you do in fact reject God. He does exist and so you can in fact reject him. You can reject a brick wall all you want but when you drive your car in to it at 100 miles per hour you are going to know that it exists. God exists whether you reject him or not. Whether you rationalize your rejection as not rejecting him or not.

Your logic works exactly the same for any deity or fantasy creature you wish to try. Let's use Zeus, one of my favorites:

You have heard about Zeus and you deny his existence. That is rejection. / That is not the same as the young child in Africa who has not heard at all of him and therefore has not formed an opinion. I won't judge your rejection except to say that you do in fact reject Zeus. Zeus does exist and so you can in fact reject him. You can reject a brick wall all you want but when you drive your car in to it at 100 miles per hour you are going to know that it exists. Zeus exists whether you reject him or not. Whether you rationalize your rejection as not rejecting him or not.

 

[thessalonian]

Nope, I reject Zues. 100% true. I must be missing your point but I don't feel that I need to play with and change the english language to say that I don't reject him. I'll take my chances on ourright rejection of him. It is true that the girl in africa does not reject him. But I don't think that's a problem for her eternal destiny either.

Now you put the one true God in the category of Zues. But only in twisting the English language can you say you don't reject him. It is true that one who has never heard of him cannot be said to reject him, though we should be able to come to a conclusion about God from nature which cries out to the glory of him. If you want to take your chances in rejecting the one true God, that is your choice and he won't violate your will. But like the brick wall their is going to be consequences when you meet up with him. I'm not going to sugar coat it or get relativist on you. Sorry. The evidence of his existence is out there even for a non-christian.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

As a ps. You cannot compare yourself to someone who has not heard of God. They don't know if a God does or doesn't exist and don't have the information yet to make any kind of conclusion. There are not always two cases in everything. That is the error of your thinking. You are in a different category than the person in Africa of which you speak. There is perhaps and innocense in that young child that you cannot claim anymore. Sorry.

 

[Novum]

As a ps. You cannot compare yourself to someone who has not heard of God. They don't know if a God does or doesn't exist and don't have the information yet to make any kind of conclusion.

I am an agnostic atheist. I do not know if a God does or doesn't exist and I certainly don't have the information to make any kind of conclusion.

 

[Imagican]

First of all Novum, why do you 'think' that religion plays 'such a large role' in the affairs of mankind? Your answer will certainly play a large part in understanding your replies.

 

[Drew]

Wow - the above sequence is a little confusing. I see agnostics as basically saying that they simply do not know whether or not God exists. Of course, God either factually exists or He does not. If God factually exists, and person X believes in the factual existence of God and chooses to reject a relationship - then we can speak of a "rejection" of God.

There is nothing incoherent about a person being a "sincere" agnostic if that person factually does not have information available to him that justifies concluding that God exists (or doesn't exist, for that matter). Now a Christian may believe that the agnostic is really rejecting a God for which clear evidence exists - and hence the agnostic is "turning his back" on the truth. But such a belief on the part of the Christian does not establish the "fact of the matter".

In order to argue fairly, you cannot simply presume that the agnostic, even one who has heard the gospel, is turning his back on the truth. Hearing the gospel invites the further question: "Is it factually true?". So rejection of the gospel does not suffice to show that the person has rejected a real living God.

 

[Imagican]

Drew, I offer that MUCH sooner than you think, you will KNOW that God exists. For most Christians, I believe they not only KNOW that He exists, but KNOW Him.

Novum hasn't answered my question yet, but I'm going to post my reply anyway.

Folks, We ALL have an inherent NEED to know and understand the Creator. He created us that way. That doesn't mean that we can not reject this 'need'. Like food and water, shelter and clothing, love and companionship, etc......., we can choose what we eat or drink, where we live and what we wear, and develope relationships according to what we are willing to put into them. But with each of these things there is a 'very broad' acceptance of what is 'actually needed'. We could substitute beer with water, eat ONLY one kind of food, wear NO clothes, live on a beach without shelter and completely ALONE if we so chose. But, what would the consequences be?

God is NO different. We NEED Him. Many will reject this idea which goes right back to the rejection of Him persoanally. Just becasue we may NEED something, short of food and water, most things that we need would take a very long time to cause permenent damage or death to be denied them.

My point? We ALL have a NEED to know and understand the Creator, (God). Denying this need doesn't change it in the least. And, in order to deny and live this life without God, we MUST substitute the 'worship' that we were designed for, for 'something else'. Sex, drugs, music, money, etc, etc,,,, all these CAN take the spiritual place that was designed FOR God. And one will NEVER find complete fulfillment without Him.

Like a bird builds a nest without EVER having learned this behavior, we too have an instinctual desire to KNOW the Creator. Ever notice how EVERY civilization on the planet and even down to small tribal groups, have SOME kind of religion and in these religions, some sort of god or gods? Obviously there MUST be a reason for this, for IF there were NO God, how did they ALL make them up for NO reason?

There are actually two gods that pertain to mankind. The one that rules this earth and the one that created it. So, if one serves not the ONE TRUE GOD, then they serve the creator of ALL the others.

And guys, what Satan would like better than having to create 'other' gods for us to worship would be for us to NOT believe in ANY gods. The atheistic or agnostic is the perfect relationship for Satan. Not only do they deny the true God, but also deny the existence of the god of this earth. And, isn't it obvious that if one is an enemy without your knowledge that they are then able to destroy you without you even being aware of their presence?

So, Novum, now you have something else to argue. But regardless of your denial and how you try to make it sound, to deny God is to REJECT Him. Ax, sword, or machine gun, once one has been murdered by one or the other, it's still murder no matter how one changes the words.

 

[ArtGuy]

Absolutely untrue, and easily demonstrated to be false. Consider a thought experiment in which we raised a boy or girl in a controlled environment and ensured that he or she never came across any concepts of religion. He or she would both be an atheist and someone who has not rejected any god - it is not possible to reject that which you do not believe exists.

I don't know if my quibble is entirely relevant to the thread at hand, but I'm going to post anyway. So neener.

I would submit that a reasonably intelligent person raised in an environment such as you describe would be able to discover, through sheer force of reason, the concept of a higher being. He would be able to at least fathom the notion that there may or may not have been an intelligent being who created the universe in the same way there was an intelligent being who created the desk at which he sits. Even if you were careful to never mention any ideas involving religious notions, the concept of their possibility is self-evident enough that most people would come to them on their own.

Eventually, this person would have to choose between accepting the idea of a deity, rejecting it, or deciding he really didn't care enough to formulate an opinion.

Perhaps a more illustrative example, so to speak, would be to suppose a blind person raised so as to believe that he was no different from anyone else. If he was never allowed to realize that there existed such a thing as "vision", he wouldn't really be able to "reject" the notion of it by positively asserting, "There is no such thing as sight." He simply wouldn't be able to conceive of that which he was rejecting.

But on the God issue, I think that there exists few, if any, people on this Earth who do not, at some point, have to make a decision whether to accept, reject, or ignore the notion of religion in the abstract.

I do agree with you in that you can't meaningfully reject someone when you don't believe they exist. You're not rejecting an entity, you're rejecting the idea of an entity. Rejection demands acceptance of existence. When you reject the idea of God, you're accepting the existence of the idea of God for purposes of making that decision.

 

[Imagican]

Absolutely untrue, and easily demonstrated to be false. Consider a thought experiment in which we raised a boy or girl in a controlled environment and ensured that he or she never came across any concepts of religion. He or she would both be an atheist and someone who has not rejected any god - it is not possible to reject that which you do not believe exists.

I don't know if my quibble is entirely relevant to the thread at hand, but I'm going to post anyway. So neener.

I would submit that a reasonably intelligent person raised in an environment such as you describe would be able to discover, through sheer force of reason, the concept of a higher being. He would be able to at least fathom the notion that there may or may not have been an intelligent being who created the universe in the same way there was an intelligent being who created the desk at which he sits. Even if you were careful to never mention any ideas involving religious notions, the concept of their possibility is self-evident enough that most people would come to them on their own.

Eventually, this person would have to choose between accepting the idea of a deity, rejecting it, or deciding he really didn't care enough to formulate an opinion.

Perhaps a more illustrative example, so to speak, would be to suppose a blind person raised so as to believe that he was no different from anyone else. If he was never allowed to realize that there existed such a thing as "vision", he wouldn't really be able to "reject" the notion of it by positively asserting, "There is no such thing as sight." He simply wouldn't be able to conceive of that which he was rejecting.

But on the God issue, I think that there exists few, if any, people on this Earth who do not, at some point, have to make a decision whether to accept, reject, or ignore the notion of religion in the abstract.

I do agree with you in that you can't meaningfully reject someone when you don't believe they exist. You're not rejecting an entity, you're rejecting the idea of an entity. Rejection demands acceptance of existence. When you reject the idea of God, you're accepting the existence of the idea of God for purposes of making that decision.

Artguy,

I agree with everything up to this point. I tell you that their IS a God. I show you evidence that points in this direction. I offer you His Word. Now, the choice is yours. Either you accept or deny. And denial is CERTAINLY rejection. And God is NOT an idea, (unless you simply don't know Him), God is the MOST real thing in the Universe. So, either you accept or deny His existence. To deny is to openly reject what He has offered in place of your 'own' understanding.

I find it continually amazing to witness the lack of understanding exhibited in some of these responses, (not yours Art). But it seems that many are completely incapable of understanding that the way things are now is BRAND NEW. Just a couple of hundred years ago things were very little changed from what they had been for almost a thousand years. Now, study your history and you will soon find that atheism was almost NON-existent for most of the recorded and probably throughtout the history that has not been recorded. It seems that this way of thinking only came about through the 'freedom' to do so. While freedom is a 'good' thing, it can also be used to destroy oneself.

And I DO NOT only refer to the Catholic Church's power over the Roman Empire, I refer to all civilizations or tribal groups that have existed. For to deny God would be a 'death' sentence in most cultures simply because of the fear of reprisal of the gods against a group that allowed ANYONE to deny their existence.

Now, isn't this kinda odd to the athiest? That religion has played SUCH a significant role in the HISTORY of mankind? I mean, if there were simply a few diverse groups that created religion on their own merits, it wouldn't seem so relevant. But when one takes into consideration the overwhelming popularity of 'religion', it takes on an even more interesting significance.

There are certainly those that have supposed that religion was created by an ignorant mankind that needed explanations for their surroundings. Rediculous. It wouldn't take religion to 'make up' stories to explain things. Yet religion is Univeral in cultures. No, not the 'same' religions, but religions that were universal in that in some form or another I have yet to hear of ANY that had NO religion. Curiouser, and cureouser, to say the least.

And these peoples were 'serious' about their religions. Oftentimes to the point of human sacrifices and such. The use of wealth and objects that were most dear used to create impliments and adornments to honor their gods. I often wonder in amazment at the lengths some of these would go to in order to please their gods.

And I guess to the atheist that these were just 'stupid' people that 'made up' stuff because they had 'nothing better to do'? Highly unlikely. These were people that may not have know the 'true' God, but were still willing to follow another.

 

[Novum]

First of all Novum, why do you 'think' that religion plays 'such a large role' in the affairs of mankind? Your answer will certainly play a large part in understanding your replies.

The one sentence answer? Because people have a tendency to seek explanations for things which they cannot explain themselves.

Ancient man saw the sun rise - he didn't know his planet was spherical or what a star was - and he suggested a sun god whose job it was to pull the sun across the sky. Gods were invented left and right across many different cultures to explain naturally occuring phenomena. Relatively recently, within the past two millennia or so, someone came up with the idea of a single, more powerful god. It makes sense - if I can combine the god of the sun and the god of the moon into a more powerful being, why not just roll them all together into one? Then we'll have a super-god!

Two thousand (or so) years later, we've got a number of competing single-god religions. The rest is history ;)

 

[Novum]

In order to argue fairly, you cannot simply presume that the agnostic, even one who has heard the gospel, is turning his back on the truth. Hearing the gospel invites the further question: "Is it factually true?". So rejection of the gospel does not suffice to show that the person has rejected a real living God.

Well said, as always, Drew!

Folks, We ALL have an inherent NEED to know and understand the Creator.

I'm going to have to stop you right there, Imagican. Quite simply, in your very first sentence you assume your conclusion - that a god exists, that we were created by this god, and so forth. That is circular logic.

I do agree with you in that you can't meaningfully reject someone when you don't believe they exist. You're not rejecting an entity, you're rejecting the idea of an entity. Rejection demands acceptance of existence. When you reject the idea of God, you're accepting the existence of the idea of God for purposes of making that decision.

Also well said, ArtGuy.

I agree with everything up to this point. I tell you that their IS a God. I show you evidence that points in this direction. I offer you His Word. Now, the choice is yours. Either you accept or deny. And denial is CERTAINLY rejection. And God is NOT an idea, (unless you simply don't know Him), God is the MOST real thing in the Universe. So, either you accept or deny His existence. To deny is to openly reject what He has offered in place of your 'own' understanding.

You assume your conclusion once again. Come on, Imagican, we've been here before. If you're using the bible to provide the existence of your god, we must first establish that your bible is true.

Now, study your history and you will soon find that atheism was almost NON-existent for most of the recorded and probably throughtout the history that has not been recorded. It seems that this way of thinking only came about through the 'freedom' to do so. While freedom is a 'good' thing, it can also be used to destroy oneself.

I find it more likely that historical atheists were killed or forced into silence than them not existing.

Besides that, I'd agree with you entirely. As our scientific knowledge and understanding of the world increased - exponentially increased, in the past two or three centuries - I think it's likely that people have seen less and less of a need for a god to explain our world.

Now, isn't this kinda odd to the athiest? That religion has played SUCH a significant role in the HISTORY of mankind? I mean, if there were simply a few diverse groups that created religion on their own merits, it wouldn't seem so relevant. But when one takes into consideration the overwhelming popularity of 'religion', it takes on an even more interesting significance.

Not really. Religion has been studied by some scholars as a mere social phenomenon in a culture, kind of like music or dance. I don't think it suggests anything odd when we see that religion has been prevalent everywhere - as I said in my previous post, it just seems to suggest that people everywhere perceive a need to explain their surroundings.

There are certainly those that have supposed that religion was created by an ignorant mankind that needed explanations for their surroundings. Rediculous. It wouldn't take religion to 'make up' stories to explain things. Yet religion is Univeral in cultures. No, not the 'same' religions, but religions that were universal in that in some form or another I have yet to hear of ANY that had NO religion. Curiouser, and cureouser, to say the least.

All right, Imagican. Try this:

1. You are a hunter-gatherer in a prehistoric tribe.
2. You see the sun appear to move across the sky.
3. You desire to explain this movement.

And now, we'll assume:

1. You do not have any knowledge of astronomy.
2. Your explanation will not involve religion, gods, deities, spirits, ghosts, and so forth.

What's your explanation? I can't conceive of anything you could possibly respond.

And these peoples were 'serious' about their religions. Oftentimes to the point of human sacrifices and such. The use of wealth and objects that were most dear used to create impliments and adornments to honor their gods. I often wonder in amazment at the lengths some of these would go to in order to please their gods.

Are you suggesting that this is something we don't see anymore? :roll:

And I guess to the atheist that these were just 'stupid' people that 'made up' stuff because they had 'nothing better to do'? Highly unlikely. These were people that may not have know the 'true' God, but were still willing to follow another.

Strawman, strawman, strawman. Come on Imagican, you should know better.

They "made up stuff" because they had no better explanations. Today, we do have better explanations. Hence, it follows that fewer people are looking to gods for answers.

 

[Imagican]

Novum,

The hunter gatherers to whom you refer could have undoubtably created many many explanations rather than creating gods as the 'answer everything' source of ALL that they didn't understand. And, isn't it weird that this happened ALL over the planet. Even with groups as isolated as the Maori and Hawaiians?

It would take a 'blind man' to not see that this WAS something inherent in mankind. Just like the bird building it's nest. There was a NEED to understand and worship the Creator even in those that got it wrong.

And, it would be one thing to attribute what man didn't understand to a 'god', but even this wouldn't explain the 'devotion' that is found in these religions. The NEED to appease their 'created' gods, so to speak.

It's kind of funny to listen to the extremes one is forced to follow when one chooses to ignore what I have offered for 'their own' ideas about the nature of religion. No, I am not the genius that 'knows all', but as far as the religions of the past, it is obvious that religion was inherent in that it was involved with ALL the people of the planet as diversely separated as they were.

And isn't it amazing that many of them had central themes that closely paralleled each other, even though the peoples couldn't have even met for thousands of years?

No, the people back then were much closer to creation than we are now. Hence, their understanding of a 'Creator' much deeper. Man of the past, (especially the hunter/gatherers to which you referred), were much more 'instinctual' than we are now. They had little as far as intricate customs and 'trained' behavior. And you know what's always said about one's instincts?

The only reason that I can see that one would choose to ignore 'creation' is their unwillingness to accept that they are not 'their own' gods and godesses. Some people are 'just too proud' to accept that they should have to answer to anyone or anything. Funny, but each of us is here for only a minute. At the end of that minute you WILL sleep. Upon awakening, all these questions of whether or not God exists will be answered to ALL. I certainly cringe at the thought of having to face God and explain why I refused to accept His existence. The Bible states that we will be judged according to how we judge. If this is true, then the only answer to those that refuse to accept and develope a relationship with God would be: I don't know you either. Therefore you belong to the 'other' god. And that, my friend is an awful scarry thought.

 

[ArtGuy]

Artguy,

I agree with everything up to this point. I tell you that their IS a God. I show you evidence that points in this direction. I offer you His Word. Now, the choice is yours. Either you accept or deny. And denial is CERTAINLY rejection. And God is NOT an idea, (unless you simply don't know Him), God is the MOST real thing in the Universe. So, either you accept or deny His existence. To deny is to openly reject what He has offered in place of your 'own' understanding.

I'm not quite sure how to interpret the above. In the example above, does the person being shown the evidence thereafter believe in God, but refuse to accept him? Or does he not believe in God even after being shown the evidence, but you're saying this still counts as meaningful rejection? Or are you saying that all atheists believe in God, but refuse to accept him?

I mean, I believe in God, and I would agree that he's the "most real thing in the universe," so if I were to right now denounce my faith, that would be a rejection of God. I would be consciously choosing to reject a being I am convinced exists. But to an atheist, rejecting God is like rejecting Santa Claus. As far as he's concerned, there's no actual being that's suffering rejection. There's not a person to say, "Wow, it's unfortunate that you haven't accepted me."

Now, this may just be a difference of semantics; at this point I'm not sure. I think it likely hinges on whether or not you assert that everyone believes in God, some just deny him out of spite or whatnot.