You've all heard the claim that we aren't really atheists, we are just mad at god. (Or you will see such things as "so and so claims to be an atheist.")
Today, though I saw an argument in chat with a theist, and someone else's account of an argument they had out in public, and I stopped to wonder if maybe we aren't sometimes encouraging this line of bullshit, albeit unwittingly.
What happened in both cases was the atheist began recounting all the sorts of horrible things Yahweh is portrayed as doing or believing or commanding. In one case, I saw the atheist say "why should I love god when he won't love me back?"
The problem with this sort of thing is we usually don't take care to phrase our remarks to make it clear that god is a character of fiction. When discussing the misdeeds of Yahweh we tend to fall back on a convention we use when we talk about a fictional character in a book. We refer to him by name and talk as if the guy was real and the book was not fiction, for example, "In George Orwell's 1984, Winston Smith was arrested for thoughtcrime," not, "In George Orwell's 1984, the character Winston Smith..."
We know what we mean, because we both know Winston Smith (or god) is fictitious. But they don't know god is fictitious.
Talking this way with someone who believes the fictional character is real might cause him not to understand you are just following the convention. Your phrasing sounds to him like you accept god as real, he "knows" god is real, so he assumes at some level you think god is real.
What I am suggesting here is that you ever want to bring up how nasty this being is, you make it clear that you don't think he exists, make sure you put "fictitious" (or equivalent) in every other sentence at least, and not let them think for a minute that you assume the existence of god.
Yes I know that when you just said you were an atheist this shouldn't be necessary, but obviously many of these people don't understand atheism in their guts, so don't let their paradigm default you into a "believer but mad at god" box.
WTF? I typed this in response to a post you had on this thread showing a picture of the idiot who got bitten by a snake. Now it's gone and instead this is a reply to Pope Paul.
Seeing snakes, Steve? - hmmmm - can you spell DT?
I dunno. I just know it was a smaller version of this photo, which I had never seen before, and your comment was something about not wishing ill on people but...
Now that I can see the photo full size in this story, it is indeed a rattler with a pattern more like I've seen on boas (we get diamondbacks around here, very different pattern.) The head is definitely not a boa head. So I couldn't even interpret my hallucination properly (except that if it was a hallucination, why would I hallucinate a photo I had not seen before?)
RE: "why would I hallucinate a photo I had not seen before?"
Maybe it was a vision!
Or -- there may just be one other possibility -- maybe after you bitched because I decided to share the article on YOUR discussion page, I deleted it, out of courtesy, and when you came on saying, "WTF?," I saw my chance to have a little good-natured fun with you (I suppose one could also call it passive/aggressive payback, if you're one of those "glass half-empty" kind of guys).
Which of those scenarios would you think is more likely true?
pax vobiscum, for reals --
The latter of course. (Actually I was wondering if the forum had glitched!)
Nice way to "gaslight" me!
I was seriously just wondering how on earth it was germane. (WTF from me is often "extremely puzzled" rather than "angry.") It looked more like it belonged over on the thread Heather started about the guy.
(Meanwhile I guess I can take this as another lesson in how not to give people the wrong impression of what I am trying to say.)
RE: "Nice way to "gaslight" me!"
I do what I can --
God does ‘not exist is this a fact? Is this scientifically proved?My main point here is: we can not prove “non existent” (the fact that does not exist).You may agree with me that science is for answering us to the How questions, how this and that is made and maybe when or when,(it’s very worthy and important and no one can give us such answers like Science)Science would show us how this universe is or was made,or how to treat diseases….also science is Why question which is ratio why this is that ….. maybe behind this there is Who question or there is not,maybe science one day find s.o sitting in the end of the long line of his work waiting him to reach that point or maybe will find no one,till now we don’t know(if your answer is we know so you admit that we have the final science which I doubt!)so science with all respect can tell us just where it stands now but not for more than one inch,it will remain give us answers and that’s great and very human,but to answer about the question WHO I think scientifically we should address to this WHO,and of course we can not,so the answer would not come from science. you know why? if science do this this is not science maybe this is after-science, doctrine or philosophy…..but not science. Either we wait until science reach the limit to answer us or maybe we seek another way or just ignore it. Also believe in God is not science and no one say this if you are agree so there is NO SCIENCE IN BOTH BLIEVING OR DENYING.THEN WE CAN PROCEED.
RE: "God does ‘not exist is this a fact?"
Which god would that be, Lonely? Thor? Odin? Zeus? Do you believe those gods exist?
You see, it it the obligation of the one saying that a god exists, to provide evidence to prove his case. Believing has nothing to do with knowing. One plus one equals two - I don't need to "believe" this, because I know it, and I can prove it by placing object A and object B in front of me and counting them. Thus I have proved that 1 + 1 = 2, and there is no need for belief.
I am not asking to prove that God exists so it's not an obligation .but you answered to my question that it's beleive not knowing,you are right.Now "there is no need to beleive "this is another issue .did you know what is lying and what is saying the truth?or you beleive that we should not say lyies because in some cases truth is not only about 1+1=2?not all the truth in world are calculatabe !
Hi POPE there is 2 not 3 ways to misbeleive God either you humanize him or you dyfei your self (i am not talking about you)that's how Mankind act either the God is human being or man itself is god?remember what saying frederic nitschke the german phylosoph.
I can't buy that Lonely - to "humanize God" is to accept that he exists, and I don't, I can't humanize a nonexistent being. I also can't deify myself, because that would mean becoming a god, or thinking of myself as a god, and since there are no gods, neither of those is possible.
You really can't even understand can you - and the language barrier has nothing to do with this - that someone can completely refuse to believe any god exists? You can't even imagine such a concept, can you?