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.
If and when we atheists allude to what we have concluded is a fictional character, then it isn't expecting too much to assume that reasonable people are aware of our implication. I don't know ANY theist who, after I said "Atticus Finch is amazing in that story" asked me "So you do think he's real! What do you think he's up to now?"
The difference is that the theist doesn't believe Atticus Finch is real, and therefore won't be tempted to think that you believe Finch is real.
Some theists have real difficulty wrapping their minds around the thought that someone might actually not believe god exists. How many times have you seen or heard one say "Joe Blow claims to be an atheist?" They are assuming there that Joe's problem isn't actual atheism but willful denial of an "obvious" truth that Joe fact really believes in--as if Joe were to verbally deny that there was such a thing as sex even though he just bragged about boffing his girlfriend last night. You could rightfully claim that Joe was only claiming to be a-sexist. And thus, this theist thinks they are right to claim there really is no such thing as a genuine atheist. This sort of theist has difficulty imagining the atheist point of view--much less agreeing with it!
This person's first problem isn't that they are theists, it's that they can't imagine anything but theism. So why make it easier for them to continue thinking there is no such thing as sincere atheism?
It's true that some theists don't have this problem; they do understand what atheism is but just don't agree with it. It's safe in that case to use the hypothetical mode when talking about god. But unless you know the person really well, you can't know that, and frankly I don't think one can know this about some particular theist without having had a discussion with them. (It's a bad sign when their response to hearing your declaration is something like "surely you don't really believe that.") If they show signs of denying that you could possibly really be an atheist and are just saying so to be outrageous or something, don't give them any possible reason to latch on to it. Expecting them to assume you are talking about god in a hypothetical mode is asking too much of someone who can't imagine sincere disbelief.
The majority of theists are NOT mentally ill. They've simply drawn an opposing metaphysical conclusion. Dismissing them as mentally impaired is an attempt to evade the debate altogether. They're human beings capable of advanced cognition, just like us atheists. If we lower our own standards, then it's US that appear weak.
Absolutely agreed. We should not tar them all as idiots or nuts. (Even the nuttier ones are often perfectly intelligent, just too wrapped up in their worldview to make any sense to those who don't share it.)
But even a mentally competent individual can fail to think outside of the box--which is in this case their belief that the existence of god is so obvious no one can really deny it. And it doesn't help them break out of the box when your overt phrasing actually is consistent with the inside of their mental box. It comes across to them as you really being in that box with them in spite of your denial; it's easier for them to imagine that than it is to imagine actual thinking outside of the box.
If we start taking this too far, like getting upset when some says "Oh my god" upon seeing a car crash, then we're closing even further the door that leads to honest, open discussion, for we are trying to quell language and expression.
I am not in any way advocating this, I am talking purely about watching what we say when we discuss the god of the bible with a theist. However I must point out that some theists will in fact latch onto a surprised/dismayed "OMG" as an indication that you are really, deep down, a believer--it's what they are trying to get at when they claim there are no atheists in foxholes. It's an occupational hazard we all have to deal with; you may worry about it enough to try to switch to "holy shit" or "fuck a duck" or "what the fuck" but I certainly won't condemn an atheist who says "oh my god" if that's what they grew up saying and it's a "burned in" habit. But he or she does need to realize what might happen if they say it in front of the "wrong" theist.
I am switching to: Oh Your Fictitious God (aka OYFG! for texting purposes).
I don't think atheists need to give religious people any reasons why we don't believe in God till they can prove to us that God actually exists. I used to be mad at Dumbledore for not sending me a letter to join Hogwarts, and yea I would have kept the owl.
In general I agree. (Some conversations have a slightly off-nominal context; perhaps the religious person is curious about your reasoning. Of course one of the reasons should be that they've given insufficient reason!)
The point I'm raising here is to make sure that the religious person you are talking to has less reason to think that deep down you really believe in god.
I have been told the same thing. yes, we make it seem like we are mad at god, and yes we may be. but there's a lot more to it than that. while, i just deconverted from pentecostalism, you and i both know that god is cruel and mean, christians are just to blinded by their "faith" to realize how cruel god really is. even the bible proves it. god is a fictious mean, character, who tortures his people. while, yes i may be mad at god and christians, but i also know that god isnt real. jesus never came to the earth. there is no proof. if people want to think i'm mad at god, thats their opinion, i know otherwise. technically, thats judging.
this is how i feel about it. my whole life i never stood up for myself at all. i was blinded. well, now im strong, and i see. i dont have to proove myself to nobody but me and my boyfriend. everybody else can kiss my ass (no offence) but thats how i feel. this is my life. if i want to be mad at god its my business, not anybody elses.
What would prompt anyone to worship such a being?
The acceptance that anger and wrath wielded by supreme power is often justifiable and/or to be expected. This belief, common in humans even before biblical times, has more credibility when such anger/wrath can be presented as having divine origin.
A few different multicultural classes I'm taking this term teach that Internalized Oppression is an effect of a sub-culture or minority being dominated by the prevailing culture or majority. But it occurs to me that this is much like legitimizing--and even having reverence for (e.g. in acts of martyrdom)--anger and wrath, whenever it's commonly attributable to "an almighty, powerful force".
Speaking pf anger,
Is it possible you meant to post this on the Anger Management thread? It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense here. Don't get me wrong, it's a good question, maybe even deserving its own thread, but it has nothing to do with whether we are encouraging Xians to think we really, deep down believe in god by not being careful how we phrase our arguments.
I have come accross this argument much and often in certain Atheist Theist debate rooms i give a 2 word answer for starters to
: Q "Arn't Atheists just mad at god ?)..says Theist
: A "Which one?" asks me
I don't think that discourages or encourages it , it's usually met with (put their god here) and I respond with that great quote Oh you only have 1 God well you too are an Atheist I Just believe in 1 less god than you sir/ma'am, Are you mad at God?
Because there is this rumour going around that WE (you and me) ALL Atheists are mad at god, even though there are no specifics in that accusation about which god in particular to which the rumour is regarding....
I would address your comment "Arn't Atheists mad at god" technically poor and some what of not only a gross misrepresentation and a straw man but a non sequitur.
LOL usually that is where the subject gets changed ...
I call it "tricks for beginners" -they will trick themselves so don't bother..
Now that's clever, turning it around on them like that!
In debates/discussions people are often asked to accept a certain premise. Sometimes I'll give them that premise in order to move on to other things.
Even in giving them the God premise I still phrase statements like "IF god exists..." and "IF your God exists, then..." Otherwise it's "First we must establish that there is a God" then "which one?"
On the other side (the believer side) They often do not have much information or possibly can't connect the dots. So God is a reality to them so it probably seems silly or naive that we can't see what they can('t).
For the record if I gave the God premise and was then accused of just being angry at God I would say "IF your God exists then my anger is justified and you should be angry with your God too ."
If, when arguing with biblical literalists, you choose to criticize Yahweh as if he were a real being, you are making the point that this god they worship is about as despicable as anyone, god or otherwise, could be, and that they should therefore be ashamed of Him (and, by extension, themselves). On the other hand, if you argue from the point of view that Yahweh is a fictional entity, then you are more specifically ridiculing the ignorance of the fundamentalist for believing such nonsense. So, I don't think one approach is better than the other; it all depends upon your objective vis a vis the specific person with whom you are engaged. I have used both approaches, but I don't pick which one to deploy until I get a good read on the mindset of the person with whom I am arguing.