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.
Neil Rickert,
I laughed out loud. My wife is looking at me strangely.
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.
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
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
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?
…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?
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.
fifth, quoting the London Baptist Confession of Faith:
Care to explain why your “infinitely loving, infinitely merciful” God tortures so many people for eternity when it’s easily avoidable?
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
If you thought that you were making an argument by analogy, then it didn’t work.
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
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:
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?
All truth is God’s truth. Just because it comes from a laboratory does not mean it’s not revelation.
peace
So. God.
So?
So now you have God as plagiarizer of science. So much for omniscience.
Here we go ’round the mulberry bush
Mulberry bush
Mulberry bush
Here we go ’round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning.
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
Yes, well, you’ve obviously bitten off more than you can chew. We’ll call it a “bad bread day” for you.
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?
KN said:
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.
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.
KN said:
Childish according to what standard? Your personal opinion? Your “norm”?
Investigation. Evidence.
Join in, RB! It’s more fun playing than standing on the sidelines with your arms crossed.
fifth,
Jesus already took the punishment, right? Why does God need to punish anyone in hell if Jesus already paid the price?
I’ll let you fight that out with Jesus, who according to Matthew said
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.
We are all arbiters of each other’s statements. That’s how norms work.
WJM:
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.
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.
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!?!
We know things by learning them. This has nothing to do with God.
fG
How do you know it is god revealing them to you? Because god has revealed that to you too? Blatant question-begging fallacy.
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.
William,
PZ has a post up along similar lines. Perhaps you’d consider sharing your wisdom with him?
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
fifth,
And how do you know it’s not the devil talking to you?
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
see above
fifth,
Could you tell me if this is revealed truth from god or not?
1 Timothy 2:12
That’s not an answer.
Q: How do you know X?
A: I know X
You can give me an answer by saying if women should remain quiet or not.
Yet
2 Corinthians 11:14
How does your god appear to you? As an angel of light perhaps?
We don’t. But the funny thing is, your god also has no way of knowing that.
He did not pay the price for everyone only for his people. The atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect.
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
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.
What, the Jews? Are you Jewish then?
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?