"You are just mad at god"--Are we actually encouraging this by mistake?

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.

Views: 5762

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

the idea about God if we try now to delete it from the server of human being,we will discover that it is not a file easly we can wipped,it's

Memory than acquired knowledge, the proof is we still talk about him positively or negatively and you are agree with me neither opinion is ratio. So what makes God the idea of him still emerging this small world is because our memory, some of us can remember and other could not.

So you're saying that when someone or some group of people is still talking about a god, that is proof that the god exists? Can all those gods really exist at the same time, and each god just has different scriptures written?

Or (again I ask), do you think you believe in the only true god, and everyone else is wrong?

It’s not a proof that god exists but it’s a proof that we are building in anyway such relationship with him by believing or denying. By the way there is no True god or false one you should attack the idea of his existing,than  there is no need to talk about them all.i hope that my poor English does not weakened my argument.

RE: "i hope that my poor English does not weakened my argument."

No, but your poor logic does. No one can have a personal relationship with an imaginary being without the aid of delusion.

@thelonely. I am not denying anything. I just don't believe it.

No god, no allah, no angels, no ghosts - simple really.

I also don't believe in Apollo, Enki, a Babylonian god, or Utu, another Babylonian god, but I have my doubts about Artemis :D 

He doesn't have poor logic if you read what he said he said people are building a delusion that they have a relationship with god. archaeopteryx- Why do you need to be so critical or someone who lacks some in english and is trying to participate with a lot of intelligent people. 

archaepteryx I know what it is like to try to speak a second or third language so I have to call you an a++hole for your unnecessary criticism.

First of all Molly, I lived in Mexico for six years with only a High School (Castillian Spanish) background, so I know as well as anyone how it feels to try to navigate with only a bare grasp of a language, and Lonely speaks FAR better English, than I did Spanish when I first went to Mexico.

Secondly, if you've been following the conversation between Lonely and myself, you will have noticed that I have bent over backward to let him know that his grasp of English is not a problem with me, it's the premise that he begins each post with, that there IS a god, with which I have a problem.

Thirdly, as you may notice, you and I have run out of "Reply" buttons, so I'm having to try to find a work-around to put this post where it should be to make sense. Well, Lonely and I ran out of "Reply" buttons as well, and because he didn't know why, he assumed that I had abruptly ended our conversation because I was angry - check our thread and see for yourself! I made it a point to go back in, find a way to place my post under his (just as I did here), so he would be sure to see it, and explained to him that as more and more replies get added to a thread, the text gets narrower and narrower, until suddenly, there are no more "Reply" buttons, and that it had nothing to do with anything I did or didn't do.

You are certainly free to call me anything and everything you like - all I ask, Molly, is that you're doing it for the right reasons.

pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx

Sounds like Occam's Razor coming into play. 

For believer's its a matter of belief or non-belief in their 'true god"..They've already assumed theirs is the true one and everyone else is wrong, so that's the only one that matters in regards to O.R for them.. Now, as Atheists we expand that to include all gods no matter the religion. That in effect renders O.R. invalid by lowering the odds of any one god being the true one. (2,000+ to 1 aren't good betting odds for anyone..)  Therefore, it invalidates O.R. and a belief in a god, while at the same time it validates a stance on Atheism. 

I need to correct my reference.. I mean Pascal's Wager, when I  mentioned Occam's Razor. No idea how I made that mistake.. LOL

I have memories Lonely, memories that my parents did just as your parents did - they taught me that their religion was the only true religion in the world. But even at that young age, I had access to National Geographic magazines that contained stories of other cultures around the world, who believed in different gods, and I found myself asking why our religion was any better than the others. When I got, "It just is." as an explanation, I began to doubt that my parents had the answer either. The older I got, the more I questioned, and the more I questioned, the more I realized that most people had no idea what was true and what was not, they just believed what their parents believed.

Gradually, through lots of study on the subject, my eyes began to open and I realized that all gods were invented by Man. My memories are still on the server, but my beliefs were overwritten by the facts.

i like when you personalize the discussion, because the idea of believe or not is simply a personnel experience with God it has no relation with science or why you interfere your self when we discussed him. So if we talk about  each individual experience with what we called God you will find unlimited experiences.

RSS

Blog Posts

Life Condensed

Posted by Cato Rigas on October 19, 2014 at 8:30pm 0 Comments

Cool Vehicle Inspection!

Posted by Ed on October 18, 2014 at 9:03am 2 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service