"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: 6149

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Anthropology was my floodgate to doubt as well. How did the one true god decide who would be lucky enough to be born to parents who held the one true faith? Another key event was a statement made by my seventh grade bible teacher (I went to a church school, and ironically he was a missionary on a home tour). Anyway he was talking about some of the Old Testament laws about kosher foods. He said that god made these rules because he was protecting his chosen ones from potential harm , ie worms in pigs, etc, that we didn't even know or understand). It started the evolution of my thinking that man invented the religion to provide rules to control behavior and create taboos to protect us from environmental threats. Then, when I took anthropology in college and learned about how other religions had taboos too it just made more sense. Man creates religion for many reasons. Among them, to create societal norms and taboos. If only religions would stop there.

I find some religions more disturbing than others for the intolerance and subjugation they engender. Some of the bible sounds like drunken men around the campfire made up rules that spoke to their personal preferences. Especially the rules about women's and children's roles and rights. The Annotated Skeptics Bible (one of the resources through this forum) highlights some crazy-a** sh** from the bible. And since Islam shares a common ancestry, I see where the red flags about human rights violations originate there.

But truth is in perception. And for a surprisingly large percentage of humans, those religions are truth.

Lonely, a toy or a car is a physical object. To say we created god, means we created him in our imaginations, not as a physical object. Regarding your thought that "we invented him one day and denied him today, which is wrong," the answer is that those who invented him were simple, uneducated, superstitious people, trying to imagine how the world became the way it was, so they invented a god to explain it. Today, we have far more knowledge and education than they did and we have answers to questions that they only guessed at - we know now far more about why the world is as it is, and we don't need an invented god as an explanation.

I realize that English is not your first language, but I hope I've understood you correctly, and that I've explained myself in a way that you can understand me.

I would guess that from a very young child, you have been raised with the words of a book, the Quran, by people important to you, who believed the words in the book to be the absolute truth. Because these people are important to you, because they believed it strongly, because they began teaching it to you as truth at a very early age, and because it is likely the only point of view you have ever heard until fairly recently, you have become convinced that what you believe is the only true belief. I can't change that, only you can by opening yourself up to other possibilities.

I would also add that many members of a religion are penalized (sometimes severely) when they leave the religion. Such fear keeps many people from thinking clearly for themselves, instead of just "safely" following the custom.

This happens in many xian communities. Can you imagine a female in a muslim country or family, even in a western country, 'stating the fact that she is now an Atheist - what would happen to her. Don't forget we have Fadi Quassis, living in Palestine Occupied Territory, who CANNOT come out as an Atheist. I thank my lovely white unicorn that I happen to be born into a secular country - well mainly secular :D

Hence excommunication. 

The fact that they invented him even in their imagination,so they and us still we are the same cause we still now invent in our imagination what is the difference. And to speak about them that they were ignorant uneducated and so now we are more armed by the science and by science we could answer all the delema .this is first, immoral, because 1) science is accumulating  work,they started it  and we are continuing  what they started(unless you believe that you are unique and this is egocentric point of view).2)neither who believes in god or those who denied him can gain more moral ,what is on the line is not how to prove it or not but to stand with your opinon by more moral and ethics. It’s so ridiculous to talk about others that if they still believe in god so they are ignorant uneducated, backwards and those who are denying his existence they are well educated…..now whether we believe or not we still built  in any way a relationship with him.

second there is no science in denying him you know why because god is not

Experimentally  proved(is not subject of science and can not be). This is not a question of science you know why because nothing is eternal in science.If you are able to speak with less arrogance we can  more enjoy the discussion.

Actually Lonely, there are many here who can testify that I am capable of speaking with far MORE arrogance - I took it easy on you because I realize there's a language barrier, and because I understand the indoctrination-filled background from which you come.

Those who wrote the Judaic/Christian Bible and the Quran WERE far more ignorant that we of today need to be. We can remain ignorant, if we choose, by ignoring all of the information that is available to us and continuing to hold to those beliefs originally put forth by ignorant, uneducated men, or we can study and learn that those who wrote such things in the Bible as "the sun stood still" and made the day longer, clearly believed the sun revolved around the earth, which we know today is not true.

Of course science is an accumulating work, and we may never know all of the answers, but religious people believe they have ALL of the answers - they believe their god did it.

You can't have a relationship with something that doesn't exist.

I wouldn't expect for me to get less arrogant - the more you demonstrate a rigid, tunnel-sighted view of the world, and a reluctance to view it any other way, you can only expect me to be more so.

Frankly, I see no point in further conversation, as my time is too valuable to waste arguing with a wall.

ma a salamma

With all respect . if you accept the idea that they started what you are doing now so they are not ignorant or narrow minded, by the way no one can prove that what it is written in all the 3 holy books are from god, so don’t accused him because of a crime he never committed .The language barrier does  not mean that you speak more rational than me.

RE: "The language barrier does  not mean that you speak more rational than me."

Of course it doesn't, I would never say that it did, but it does make it a little more difficult for us to understand each other, and to be sure that what I'm saying means the same thing to you as it does to me.

RE: "they started what you are doing now so they are not ignorant or narrow minded"

That's simply not true Lonely - what I'm doing now is saying that they are ignorant and narrow minded, so yes, you could certainly say that they started what I am doing now, because if they weren't so ignorant and narrow minded, I would have no reason to be doing what I'm doing now.

RE: "no one can prove that what it is written in all the 3 holy books are from god"

That's true for at least two reasons:

1) No one can prove those three books are "holy"

2) No one can prove there is a god.

I would never accuse an imaginary being of committing ANY crime, real or imaginary.

Did you end the discussion,cause i can not find the reply icon in the end of your comment,any way trUth is something like being hanged by yourself than you sit down and you write about it how much you were real(THE EXPERIENCE) how much you are close to it(THE TRUTH).THANK YOU ARCHAEOPTERYX.

No - I did not end the discussion. When someone replies to a post, the reply is indented a little. When someone replies to that reply, it is indented even more, until finally there are just no more "Reply" buttons, as each new reply would get smaller and smaller until there would finally be only one word on each line.

I was able to place THIS reply by going to the last reply button above, so when I hit, "Add Reply," it places my post at the bottom of the line. Try it, it should work.

RE: "trUth is something like being hanged by yourself than you sit down and you write about it how much you were real(THE EXPERIENCE) how much you are close to it(THE TRUTH)."

I can not accept that - I'm a bit disturbed you couldn't find any other analogy besides hanging - but even so, if I were stupid enough to hang myself, and somehow sit down and write about it, and you were to do the same thing, our experiences could be totally different from each other (I suppose we could ask Saddam, but he hasn't been writing much lately) - that would be no proof of truth.

Real truth is provable. Prove it, and I will accept it as truth.

no one can prove that what it is written in all the 3 holy books are from god

This is very true, and I'm glad that you can say it sincerely. Requiring proof before declaring that something is true is an encouraging sign of humility (and not arrogance), and intelligence.

Meanwhile, this truthful statement alone seems enough to prove to me that at least most scripture (2/3?) is invented by mankind. I won't ask you again to declare which 1/3 you're certain is true.



hebrew bullshit

Started by seamus mc ardle in Small Talk. Last reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer 5 hours ago. 6 Replies

Does Human Nature Change?

Started by Tom Sarbeck in Philosophy. Last reply by Tom Sarbeck 7 hours ago. 7 Replies

Sharia Law is a reality

Started by David Boots in Small Talk. Last reply by Jake LaFort on Thursday. 6 Replies

Blog Posts

Leo - the lion

Posted by Brad Snowder on April 23, 2017 at 1:25am 2 Comments

When did this happen?

Posted by Ron Humphrey on April 17, 2017 at 4:24am 1 Comment

© 2017   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service