The “consensus” view among atheists seems to be that atheism is reasonable and that religious beliefs are not.
So why are atheists angry at God?
We can become incensed by objects and creatures both animate and inanimate. We can even, in a limited sense, be bothered by the fanciful characters in books and dreams. But creatures like unicorns that don’t exist ”that we truly believe not to exist” tend not to raise our ire. We certainly don’t blame the one-horned creatures for our problems.
The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him.
I’m trying to remember the last time I got angry at something which did not exist. It’s been a while since I last played World of Warcraft, but that might be a candidate.
But atheists angry at God? That’s absurd. Assertions that there are empirical studies to that effect? Simply ludicrous. By definition, atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods. It is simply a matter of logical impossibility that atheists should be angry at God.
Clearly its the institutions and their intersection with government and society that we find problematic. Gay marriage etc etc.
Paper is here, paywall: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21219078
ETA: Full title is “Anger toward God: social-cognitive predictors, prevalence, and links with adjustment to bereavement and cancer.”
I’m not angry. I can’t speak for others.
I don’t actually see the point of threads debunking Christianity.
When religion causes problems, such as attempting to impose its theology on others, then it should be criticized. Otherwise, I’m satisfied to let it be.
First of all, it’s certainly misleading to claim that “atheists are angry with God” when the finding was that some atheists are “angry with God,” and certainly not all atheists. Secondly, the study qualifies these issues, by saying things like some atheists and agnostics are found to be angry with God particularly on measures involving past experiences and a “hypothetical God.”
I mean, it would certainly be better to report the various qualifications used, rather than to pull a typical UD with a broadbrush accusation ignoring nuance and qualifying attributes. I realize the article Mung quotes did that as much as Mung’s OP did, but that’s sort of the point, don’t use secondary sources, at least not as your only sources.
Oh, and duh, what a shock, there are self-described atheists/agnostics who are “angry at God.” It’s not hard to get a number going on the “OT God” or what-not. And just about all of the foibles of humanity are common among atheists, from self-righteousness to hardly paying attention to human complexity. That should be obvious.
Persons are hardly paragons of virtue, the real issue is how well the propositions hold up.
Glen Davidson
I suppose that might be a valid point. Did the study find that certainly not all atheists are angry with God?
Neil Rickert:
Mung,
Have you read the Study Mung? I haven’t.
Do you think biblical literalism is an entailment of Christianity, Mung?
Atheists cannot possibly be angry with God.
0:55 An Atheist Reads the Bible
Biblical Literalism is an entailment of Atheism.
I also find institutionalised gay marriage problematic. On several levels.
Mung, buy and read this book:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2015/07/are-atheists-just-rebelling-against-god/
Poor Mung doesn’t like defending Christianity, so he tries to change the subject to attacking atheists.
Mung,
You claim to be a programmer. Do the programs you write “exist” or not?
I’m getting that déjà-vu sensation.
Ah yes! Angry at God? back last November. Maybe some bases have already been covered. Where’s phoodoo these days?
No true atheist can be angry with God!
True atheists probably don’t exist
check it out
http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-13998
and
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/12/religious-belief-is-human-nature-huge-new-study-claims/
peace
But the point is that that religions have always imposed on nonbelievers. Still do.
Suppose a consortium of scientists asserted that cell phones cause cancer and managed to have cell phones outlawed. Would it not make sense to examine the science?
fifthmonarchyman,
Get a 404 with your first link. I think Trigg makes a non-controversial point regarding your second. I’ve often remarked that people in general seem predisposed to some sort of religious belief. Doesn’t have any bearing on the truth of that belief, though.
We have laws requiring immunizations to protect children. We say the laws are reasonable because the science is true. But science is always up for review.
If a religion is true it makes sense to require that it be taught to children, for their protection. And this has been the law for much of history.
I see no difference between challenging science and challenging religion when either is the basis for laws.
Examining the science about Cell phones would make sense.
What would not make sense is mocking the bylaws of the consortium. What would make even less sense is coming up with a conspiracy theory about the supposed malevolent origin of the consortium and questioning the existence of it’s founder.
peace
I agree it does not have any bearing on the truth of religious belief but it does have bearing on the truth of the claim not to have religious beliefs.
Don’t you agree?
On second thought I do think it might have bearing on the truth of religious beliefs if we assume that our mental faculties are generally reliable. But that is beside the point
peace
See my previous OP here where I propose an analogy with smoking. I think there may be a continuum of propensity for people’s belief in the non-material varying from utter life-time commitment to immunity. I think it could be heritable or at least have a heritable component. So, yes, to an extent I agree.
fifthmonarchyman,
PS there are times and places where it is counter-productive to openly declare as an atheist: US prisons and Pakistan for instance.
Just as there are places where it is counter-productive to openly declare as a theist. North Korea or some university faculties for instance
I’m sure you will agree
peace
Fifth: revealed religion is — well — revealed. If the revelation is true and accurate history, then the religion is true. Otherwise, not.
fifthmonarchyman,
I have no direct experience of North Korea. I think the state religion is worship of the supreme leader, Kim Jong-un, as far as I can tell. Disagreeing with this religion would, I imagine, get you in trouble.
University? You can’t get a job in some US universities without signing a faith statement, I understand. Didn’t Bill Dembski fall foul of that? And Jim Stump?
ETA perhaps no excuse for posting this but couldn’t resist.
Mung,
I’m not sure of Mung’s point. If he sees a contradiction, he is misreading.
If I were trying to debunk Christianity, I would be a mythicist. But I’m not.
Sure. But criticize that. There’s no point in criticizing their theology.
No, I believe it’s officially it’s an atheist state. At least the vast majority of residents declare themselves atheistic or agnostic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_North_Korea
Although as has been demonstrated declaring yourself to be atheist does not in anyway stop you from worshiping. That is sort of the point
peace
If their theology is true, they are justify in attempting to convert the world, for the same reason that vaccines are justified by the truth of medical science.
Perhaps not conversion by the sword, but at least required religious education for children. Which is the norm in the world.
When I was a kid you could not get any job at all unless you were a churchgoer. Certainly not a teaching job. and businesses were free to ask about your church attendance in job interviews.
fifthmonarchyman,
Wikipedia describes the personality cult that surrounds and supports Kim Jong-un.
I’m only a little younger than you but that kind of scrutiny had disappeared (if it ever existed) here in the UK. Perhaps the Church of England was the first atheist religion to be established. 🙂
How many homosexuals were imprisoned in England, and when was that stopped?
Were the relevant laws imposed by nonbelievers?
petrushka,
We don’t agree on much but I wholeheartedly agree in the principle of no religious tests as conditions for government employment. It was a core value of my religious forefathers they paid dearly for it.
check it out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause
When it comes to private employers I’m libertarian. I would not want the local old order Mennonite grocery to be forced to hire a vocal satanist. It might adversely effect the sales of homemade pies
peace
Homosexuality (consenting adults in private) was decriminalized in 1967. I don’t know what the level of imprisonment was before that. Here is some info.
I don’t recall this as a religious issue as a kid. It seemed more about prejudice, in-groups, out-groups and “ickiness”.
That is my impression as well.
I think that homosexuality was outlawed in the atheistic Soviet Union for example. It only became a religious issue with the proposed extension of marriage to homosexual couples.
My side views marriage to be a religious covenant so the redefinition of marriage is viewed (rightly or wrongly) as another attack on religious freedom.
peace
So you think religion had no part in the history of buggery laws? Let’s just hang people because they are icky?
At least now that England has done away with the laws, they’ve had the decency to pardon those were convicted and expunge their criminal record.
So many have “followed the temptation of darkness”
I haven’t given it much thought, frankly. Being in charge and being able to decide on the fate of others does seem to require support from the religious movements wiling to join in an unholy alliance of oppression of the masses. Sure religious authority is a powerful tool if you want to run a state. Getting endorsed by the Pope could give you an edge in Medieval Europe, no doubt.
Just my personal recollection when I was a teenager. A general all-pervasive prejudice against the out-group. I’m ashamed to admit in my rural part of central England where I was a kid that extended to pretty much any indicator of difference.
ETA nobody needed a religious excuse. Except maybe for the Catholics!
Let me be clear to mung and to anyone else who violates the rules of this forum by telling me what I really think, in opposition to what I post.
My objection to religion is solely confined to religion as expressed as law or public policy. Yes, I have some real anger at stupid laws. I have an equal amount of anger at stupid secular laws. I have no interest in theology except where it impinges on politics.
But since politics in the west has been dominated by theological rationalizations and justifications, there’s a lot to dislike.
I maintain that if the theology were valid and if the biblical stories were true, the laws and policies would be rational.
The Anglican church is pretty much Catholicism without Latin and the authority of the Pope. Are you suggestion that Martin Luther would not have supported laws against homosexuality? And why not get off the island and look at the rest of the world? How about Muslims?
You really think western lay is not influenced by Leviticus?
Agreed on all three points.
As for universities and colleges in the US: yes, there are many private schools that have a religious mandate. They vary quite widely in how strictly it is applied. In Catholic schools, it is often required that candidates show that they understand and support the religious character of the school. But this is not even true of all Catholic schools. By contrast, some Protestant schools require a ‘statement of faith’ from candidates.
On the other hand, I do not think that universities tend to ostracize or punish people of faith. Typically it simply doesn’t come up. But I have no reason to think that a religious person employed by a public university or college would be discriminated against. (For one thing, any public university or college that did discriminate against people of faith would be open to a lawsuit under the Equal Opportunity Employment Act.)
For something to be redefined it needs to be defined. Is there a specific passage in the bible that defines it? What is it please? If not, what definition are you using?
No American law has tried to redefine the religious definition of marriage.
The problem is that religion has embedded itself into government in the form of influence and tax breaks. It’s one of those render unto Cesar moments.
KN, I think you are ignoring the fact that successful religions proselytize. That means they do a bit more than write books on theology and philosophy.
I also means they make things difficult for nonbelievers. If you do not personally fee the discomfort, it is because brave people have gone before you and taken the heat.
Your scorn at Dawkins and Coyne is misplaced. They are not trying to be cutting edge philosophers. They are beacons declaring there is safe passage for nonbelievers. You can come out of the closet. In my personal experience, there is reason to be in the closet.
OMagain,
That’s a red herring, though. I don’t think there can be any serious doubt that the idea that two people of the same sex could have a loving, committed, sexually active and monogamous relationship was beyond the comprehension of the Biblical authors. (There is the possible exception of David and Jonathan, but since the text does not explicitly say that they “knew” each other, it’s ambiguous at the very least.)
The question is, “so what?”
That is, why should that fact about what the Biblical authors could and could not comprehend have any bearing about what public policies we should and should not propose and endorse?
As far as I’m concerned, as a “religious liberal” (not my favorite term — will need to think of a better one), public policies are subjected to something like a ‘veil of ignorance’ test: what policies would I want a society to have if I didn’t know what position I would have in that society?
Considered from that perspective, I think it follows that no one who used the veil of ignorance test would want to live in a society in which the convictions of any religious group were used as the sole basis for restricting the possibilities of anyone who was not a member of that group.
KN, if the laws of God were dictated to Moses, wouldn’t it make sense to enforce them?