Angry at God

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.

When Atheists Are Angry at God

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.

1,643 thoughts on “Angry at God

  1. Neil Rickert,

    When we have theists spouting this kind of verbiage, we already have evidence that the universe is not fully comprehensible.

    I laughed out loud. My wife is looking at me strangely.

  2. Neil Rickert: So much the worse for your kind of logic.

    For me, logic is a useful human practice. It isn’t any kind of metaphysical principle.

    William, meet Neil. Neil isn’t actually offering an argument, he’s just offering his opinion. The “for me” is a dead giveaway. The proper response is to just thank Neil for sharing his opinion and move on.

    Of course logic is a useful human practice. Who ever doubted that?

    That bit about “so much for your kind of logic.” That’s just cultish babbling. It plays to the crowd. Assures the onlookers that Neil is still a true believer. Without such statements Neil would soon become completely irrelevant here at TSZ.

    Don’t expect Neil to demonstrate how “his kind of logic” is any different from “your kind of logic.”

    Apparently his is pragmatic and yours isn’t. Somehow.

  3. Neil Rickert: What we mean by “truth” is itself much debated.

    You can say that again. Non-Christians have been knocking that one around forever

    quote:

    “For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world–to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”.
    (Joh 18:37b-38a)

    end quote:

    Too bad they miss what is right in front of their noise

    quote:

    Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
    (Joh 14:6)

    end quote:

    peace

  4. keiths: And likewise, no one should expect an omniscient being to know things that are logically impossible for it to know.

    Now add to that the following: No one should expect an omniscient being to not know things that are logically impossible for it to not know.

    Further, no one should expect that God should be subject to impossible states of affairs.

    This is the danger of not actually making an argument, but substituting instead a number of assertions and then expecting people to just blindly agree with you that what you have said is reasonable

  5. Neil Rickert: Okay, except that I don’t know what it means to say that atheism is true. “Atheism” is a label, not a set of beliefs.

    I’m sorry, but I missed that post of yours where you informed keiths that for you “Christianity” is just a label and it’s meaningless to say that Christianity is false.

    Why one earth would you hold to the “weak label” argument against Christianity?

    Neil, when you go shopping, do you ever look at the labels, and if so, why?

  6. Ever heard of Christophany? God never once communicates without the Logos.

    …says fifth, offering no evidence whatsoever.

    So it was the Son talking to Adam and Eve, and the Son making promises to Abraham, and the Son encouraging Moses, and the Son speaking to the prophets, and on and on, and you know this how?

    And you wonder why people roll their eyes at your gullibility?

  7. keiths: William at least tries to justify his claim…

    Emulate William then keiths.

    You fail to engage fifth as to how you know anything at all, other than a link to a post where you claim there is no certain knowledge.

    We’re still waiting for the argument upon which you reached your conclusion that Christianity is false. But you defend (justify) your claims. Except when you don’t.

  8. fifth, quoting the London Baptist Confession of Faith:

    The Lord our God is but one God, whose subsistence is in Himself; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light, which no man can approach unto; who is in Himself most holy, every way infinite, in greatness, wisdom, power, love, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth; who giveth being, moving, and preservation to all creatures.

    [Emphasis added]

    Care to explain why your “infinitely loving, infinitely merciful” God tortures so many people for eternity when it’s easily avoidable?

  9. fifthmonarchyman: There is no “before the incarnation” from the perspective of a timeless God. I never cease to be amazed at the shallowness of some peoples’ knowelege of Christianity

    I never cease to be amazed at the obviously crazy things some christians have made up, post hoc, to paper over the cracks in their batshit theology as those cracks have been pointed out over the years.

    Almost everything, 99.9% of what you think you know about the alleged “deepness” of your christianity are simply deepities which were invented by liars for Jesus to keep people like you bamboozled and happy while they steal your money and corrupt your children.

    The fancier-sounding the words they invent, the more fools like you lap ’em up.

    Well, the hicks who believe in a surface reading of the bible, believe in the literal plain text, they’re fools too. But at least they have a little integrity. They don’t have to paper over the crecks in their theology with words they delude themselves are meaningful, the way you do.

  10. Patrick: Or you could start by providing an operational definition of this god thing you keep going on about and some objective, empirical evidence that it actually exists.Until that’s established, you’re quite literally talking nonsense.

    Yawn. Hot air makes me tired.

    Or you could start by providing some operational definitions of these things you keep going on about and some objective, empirical evidence that they actually exist. Until that’s established, you’re quite literally talking nonsense.

  11. keiths: Care to explain why your “infinitely loving, infinitely merciful” God tortures so many people for eternity when it’s easily avoidable?

    You have a twisted Idea of hell. Hell is simply where you pay for the evil you have done. Think of Karma. It’s not torture it’s justice

    As far as it being easily avoidable. Why on earth would God want to avoid it? A god that would leave sins unpunished is not worthy of worship. Sort of like a pushover substitute teacher that no one respects.

    peace

  12. fifthmonarchyman: quote:

    Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
    (Joh 14:6)

    end quote:

    If we could go by that, then new knowledge should be pouring out of the monasteries instead of the scientific laboratories.

    Our experience suggests otherwise.

  13. Patrick: One aspect of an operational definition is that it allows an objective observer to determine if an artifact, entity, or observation meets the criteria for that which is being defined.It allows one to distinguish between that which is being defined and other things.

    Great! So you know some aspects of an operational definition.

    You were requested to provide an operational definition of an objective observer.

    Can you?

    Can you tell us what is the objective difference between an entity and a thing?

  14. Mung: I’m sorry, but I missed that post of yours where you informed keiths that for you “Christianity” is just a label and it’s meaningless to say that Christianity is false.

    If you thought that you were making an argument by analogy, then it didn’t work.

  15. fifthmonarchyman: As far as it being easily avoidable. Why on earth would God want to avoid it? A god that would leave sins unpunished is not worthy of worship. Sort of like a pushover substitute teacher that no one respects.

    I find it ironic that you have been complaining that atheists reject a childish conception of God, when your own conception of God — God as a punisher of sin! — is no less childish.

  16. Kantian Naturalist: I find it ironic that you have been complaining that atheists reject a childish conception of God, when your own conception of God — God as a punisher of sin! — is no less childish.

    How so? It seems to me that Just is probably the second most valued attribute in God.

    Know Justice Know Peace
    no Justice no Peace

  17. Kantian Naturalist: The metaphysical implications of actual design in nature are negligible: if there is actual design in nature, then there exists at least one designer.

    For each instance of actual design, there could be a different designer. But that’s beside the point. Or perhaps even ignoring the point:

    You wrote:

    For that matter, this distinction is also stressed by the advocates of design theory who insist that their theory is strictly based on the evidence and has no metaphysical implications at all.

    Do you have anything at all to offer in support of this assertion?

    Who are these ID theorists “who insist that their theory … has no metaphysical implications at all” and where do they say it?

  18. Neil Rickert: If we could go by that, then new knowledge should be pouring out of the monasteries instead of the scientific laboratories.

    Our experience suggests otherwise.

    All truth is God’s truth. Just because it comes from a laboratory does not mean it’s not revelation.

    peace

  19. Patrick: …consider the objective observer to be an ideal that we can all strive towards and that can be approached by consilience among multiple individuals.

    So. God.

  20. Here we go ’round the mulberry bush
    Mulberry bush
    Mulberry bush
    Here we go ’round the mulberry bush
    So early in the morning.

  21. Neil Rickert: So now you have God as plagiarizer of science.

    No, in my worldview the way you know things is that God reveals them to you. That goes for all knowelege

    How do you know things in your worldview?

    peace

  22. keiths: Just four comments in, and Mung is already having a bad thread day.

    Yes, well, you’ve obviously bitten off more than you can chew. We’ll call it a “bad bread day” for you.

  23. fifthmonarchyman: All truth is God’s truth. Just because it comes from a laboratory does not mean it’s not revelation.

    Yay god! Great way to cheat and make sure your side comes out the winner. Just steal all the others’ results and claim they were yours all along, Yay god!

    What else does god steal?

    Got any more confessions to make, fifthmonarchyman?

  24. KN said:

    That’s where the logic leads if one has already conceptualized the norms of discourse as containing the presuppositions of theism.

    If the nature of the debate is indeed constructed of mere norms, then your statement above is idiosyncratic and cannot amount to anything more than rhetoric, because there is no actual arbiter of truthful statements about logic, inferences, or conclusions.

    At this point, all I am objecting to is the attempt to build theism right into the very conception of rational discourse itself.

    Unless logic and existence is grounded by an actual arbiter of truth and proper debate and living, you have nothing to object to. Objecting to a “norm” is the equivalent of objecting to a personal opinion or a tradition because your own norm is different; so what?

    To repeat: If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If logic is not assumed to be a causally independent, authoritative arbiter of true statements, there’s no reason to apply it. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place. If you do not assume mind is primary, there is no “you” to make any argument at all.

    You keep forming responses in a manner consistent with the assumption that all of the above is true, even while the content of your responses insists it is not; but even asserting that the content of your responses is true or is more accurate than mine requires the assumptions I have listed. You cannot present an argument against my perspective unless there is some means by which to judge your view better than mine according to some non-arbitrary standard; otherwise, all you are saying here amounts to nothing but rhetoric and semantic manipulation.

    There is either what we call god that sets the actual standard of truth, reason and proper living, or there’s absolutely no friggin’ reasonf for me to give a crap about what you say because it’s all just your own personal opinionated rhetoric. You can’t argue that an argument is true while at the same time asserting that truth is only in the eye of the beholder; because if I see it as false, then it is false by the only measurement that matters.

    If you make an argument based on the premise that you are arguing from a set of norms, why the hell should I care? If I reject your norms, so what? If I reject your definitions and your logic, so what? If my logic and my perspective is enclosed and self-serving, so what? What does it matter?

    The sad thing is, if atheism is true, none of your (the atheists here) arguments matter. We will all still play out whatever role physics and chance commits us to, say and thing whatever physics and chance directs us to say and think, and believe whatever physical forces cause us to believe.

    Under atheism, arguing (and trying to live “properly”) is an absurdity. If all we have are norms, your arguments are entirely empty and self-defeating.

  25. KN said:

    I find it ironic that you have been complaining that atheists reject a childish conception of God, when your own conception of God — God as a punisher of sin! — is no less childish.

    Childish according to what standard? Your personal opinion? Your “norm”?

  26. Here we go ’round the mulberry bush
    Mulberry bush
    Mulberry bush
    Here we go ’round the mulberry bush
    So early in the morning.

    Join in, RB! It’s more fun playing than standing on the sidelines with your arms crossed.

  27. fifth,

    As far as it being easily avoidable. Why on earth would God want to avoid it? A god that would leave sins unpunished is not worthy of worship.

    Jesus already took the punishment, right? Why does God need to punish anyone in hell if Jesus already paid the price?

    You have a twisted Idea of hell. Hell is simply where you pay for the evil you have done. Think of Karma. It’s not torture it’s justice

    I’ll let you fight that out with Jesus, who according to Matthew said

    The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    Matthew 13:41-42, NIV

    Jesus thought it was torture, if you believe the author of Matthew. It’s good to see that you don’t trust the Bible on this, though.

  28. William J. Murray: If the nature of the debate is indeed constructed of mere norms, then your statement above is idiosyncratic and cannot amount to anything more than rhetoric, because there is no actual arbiter of truthful statements about logic, inferences, or conclusions.

    We are all arbiters of each other’s statements. That’s how norms work.

  29. WJM:

    there is no actual arbiter of truthful statements about logic, inferences, or conclusions.

    I’ve appointed an arbiter of true statements – my mate Bill. He’s infallible. Never tells me what the answer is, but at least he exists (I think), and he’s an arbiter of true statements. There – atheist rationality back on an even footing with the theists’. Phew! Thought they had us there for a moment.

  30. William J. Murray: The sad thing is, if atheism is true, none of your (the atheists here) arguments matter.

    That’s right! And so?

    Out of interest, why did you not kill yourself when you were an atheist? That seems the logical thing to do, according to theist WJM.

  31. William J. Murray: There is either what we call god that sets the actual standard of truth, reason and proper living

    Could you tell me what the standard of “proper living” is according to your god?

    Do women need to cover their hair?
    Can we eat fish on Friday?

    The trouble with people like you WJM who make statements like that is that you can *never ever* say what the standard is!

    If god has set the standard of proper living and you know that, why is is impossible for you to state what that standard is, specifically?

    Apart from anything else, this undermines your argument from the start. You say X sets what Y is but can’t then say what Y is! So how do you know X sets Y in the first place!?!

  32. fifthmonarchyman: No, in my worldview the way you know things is that God reveals them to you. That goes for all knowelege

    How do you know it is god revealing them to you? Because god has revealed that to you too? Blatant question-begging fallacy.

  33. William J. Murray: The sad thing is, if atheism is true, none of your (the atheists here) arguments matter.

    To whom? They matter to me and everyone I know. Besides, appeal to emotional consequences fallacy.

    Pertinently, no matter how sad the facts are, their sadness do not influence their truth-value.

  34. Rumraket: How do you know it is god revealing them to you?

    There are spesific instructions given on how to know these things. Basically it comes down to the coherence theory of truth on steroids.

    quote:

    We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
    (1Jn 4:6)

    and

    The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps.
    (Pro 14:15)

    end quote:

    peace

  35. faded_Glory: We know things by learning them.

    How do you know your mental faculties are reliable and you are not being deceived? To be spesific how do you know you are not in the matrix?

    peace

  36. fifth,
    Could you tell me if this is revealed truth from god or not?

    I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

    1 Timothy 2:12

  37. fifthmonarchyman: see above

    Yet

    And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

    2 Corinthians 11:14

    How does your god appear to you? As an angel of light perhaps?

  38. fifthmonarchyman: How do you know your mental faculties are reliable and you are not being deceived? To be spesific how do you know you are not in the matrix?

    We don’t. But the funny thing is, your god also has no way of knowing that.

  39. keiths: Jesus already took the punishment, right? Why does God need to punish anyone in hell if Jesus already paid the price?

    He did not pay the price for everyone only for his people. The atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect.

    keiths: Jesus thought it was torture, if you believe the author of Matthew.

    I just did a word search of the entire bible and the word torture is not found. gnashing of teeth is is what you do when you are angry not when you are tortured.

    from Websters
    quote:

    gnash- grind (one’s teeth) together, typically as a sign of anger.
    end quote:

    peace

  40. Neil Rickert: We are all arbiters of each other’s statements. That’s how norms work.

    Right. Intersubjectivity and embodiment are baked right into the cake of our epistemic and semantic condition from the very beginning. There is no egocentric predicament, and so there’s no worry about subjectivism and arbitrariness, and likewise no threat that emotion or violence will win out over reason and evidence.

    Murray seems to think that we must assume that the criteria of good reasoning as woven into the very fabric of reality in order for us to regard ourselves as constrained by them. But this amounts to a profound misunderstanding: although there are indeed features of objective reality that we are hold ourselves answerable. our stance of holding ourselves answerable to those features is an attitude that we are taking, a norm that we have adopted.

    There are biological norms, too: norms of nutrition and health and development. And it’s probably right that discursive norms — norms of reasoning, evidence, judgment, etc. — couldn’t have evolved if there weren’t any biological norms first. Discursive norms are themselves the products of evolution — namely, the evolution of uniquely human forms of cooperation. Hence the identification of norms (as I am using the term) with customs and traditions, and likewise with anything that can be changed on a whim, rests on a misunderstanding of everything I’ve written.

  41. fifthmonarchyman: There are spesific instructions given on how to know these things. Basically it comes down to the coherence theory of truth on steroids.

    quote:
    We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
    (1Jn 4:6)

    and

    The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps.
    (Pro 14:15)
    end quote

    Great, you have now given me two quotes that you presumably believe to be true. They have nothing to do with how you, personally, know that the things you think you know are revelations from god.

    This is what you said: “No, in my worldview the way you know things is that God reveals them to you. That goes for all knowelege”

    How do you know that? You quote me bible verses, that’s probably a magnificent thing to do where you are from, but it doesn’t answer the question I asked of you. Those things you think are revealed to you by god, how do you know they are revealed to you by god?

    Also, these revelations you speak of, how do they happen? Did you wake up one day and god spoke to you “milk is white” in a loud voice, and from then on you just “knew” milk was white?

Leave a Reply