Why do the God-haters persist?

[Boss]

For a complete "myth" it sure as hell seems to have touched a nerve or two.

Nope!

Never ending stupidity is what irritates people!

Wow... so that's why you are so irritating! I wondered about that... thanks!

 

[Derideo_Te]

For a complete "myth" it sure as hell seems to have touched a nerve or two.

Nope!

Never ending stupidity is what irritates people!

Wow... so that's why you are so irritating! I wondered about that... thanks!

Puerile!

 

[MDiver]

Boss, I'm a "true Atheist" and I agree with your statement that many Atheists will look at the very religious with a sense of humor and consider them a bit of a novelty and I have no problem with them up to a point.
I disagree vehemenly that as a true Atheist, I believe that I can do whatever I like and that there is no accountability for my actions.
The majority of true Atheists believe in law and order. If you steal, you should be punished accordingly. If you murder, you again should be held accountable. For most of us, our belief is to be kind to your neighbor and report any crime.
The point where I and no doubt others draw a line is when the overtly religious feel that they must impose their religious ideologies on those "not of their faith" and as there are over 4,000 religions in the world and numerous sub-categories of them (Christianity supposedly having 41,000 sects, each one claiming to be the one true Christian religion, while the others are supposedly going to a hell of some sort), making any religious based laws or restrictions on those not of their religious ideology is inherently wrong.

 

[DriftingSand]

We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.

True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.

Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss! Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories. It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.

But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout believers in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they fear God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.

Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.

So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.

Generally speaking, the folks who insult or rave against God are the ones who are angry that God has given them the lives they think they deserve. Instinctively, they believe that God exists but, like spoiled little children, rebel against Him to get His attention. Many simply don't understand Him and His relationship to His creation. As a result, they blame Him for all the bad things that happen to them or their family members or their friends or the world.

Perhaps they will humbly seek His wisdom one day and come to realize that He holds in His hands a great future for them if only they come to believe in Him and His Son.

 

[Boss]

Boss, I'm a "true Atheist" and I agree with your statement that many Atheists will look at the very religious with a sense of humor and consider them a bit of a novelty and I have no problem with them up to a point.
I disagree vehemenly that as a true Atheist, I believe that I can do whatever I like and that there is no accountability for my actions.
The majority of true Atheists believe in law and order. If you steal, you should be punished accordingly. If you murder, you again should be held accountable. For most of us, our belief is to be kind to your neighbor and report any crime.
The point where I and no doubt others draw a line is when the overtly religious feel that they must impose their religious ideologies on those "not of their faith" and as there are over 4,000 religions in the world and numerous sub-categories of them (Christianity supposedly having 41,000 sects, each one claiming to be the one true Christian religion, while the others are supposedly going to a hell of some sort), making any religious based laws or restrictions on those not of their religious ideology is inherently wrong.

I think you are missing the delineation made between actual Atheists and people who are god-haters pretending to be Atheists. As I said, some people in my own family define me as an Atheist. This is because I am non-theistic in my spirituality. I can certainly relate to Atheists having a sense of morality, but if you honestly feel that laws should never be based on religious ideology, then you should reject almost every law. You would be hard pressed to find any law that isn't based in some way, to some degree, on someone's religious ideology.

 

[hobelim]

No, what you are "supposed to do" is follow your heart, and by "heart" I mean your inner spirit. That's the only path to the truth. All religious books are meaningless until you do that.

In ancient times people thought that the organ of the heart is where consciousness was seated. Whenever the affairs of the heart are spoken of in scripture what they are really speaking about is what goes on in the organ of the brain, where we now know that consciousness is seated.

There is no such think as a heart that a person is 'supposed to follow'. Everything is perceived in the brain. There is no inner spirit aside from consciousness itself.

according to you a person should follow a figment of their imagination as the only path to truth.

Great advice!

Anyone with eyes can see the many wonderful things that doing that has done for you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Never met an atheist who hated G-d. Rather they hate the people advocating for gods without being able to show anything resembling proof. Apparently we're supposed to take the word of the Bible itself hich would be like saying Xenu exists because Scientology's books do. A religious book does not prove itself.

I never met an atheist who hated God either. They don't believe in God, so how can you hate what you don't believe exists? They also don't hate people who can't show proof of something they know doesn't exist, that doesn't even make logical sense. That's why I call the punks here "God-haters" and not Atheists.

No, what you are "supposed to do" is follow your heart, and by "heart" I mean your inner spirit. That's the only path to the truth. All religious books are meaningless until you do that.

All religious books are meaningless in any event.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Mahatma Gandhi

 

[Youwerecreated]

For a complete "myth" it sure as hell seems to have touched a nerve or two.

Nope!

Never ending stupidity is what irritates people!

The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God




William Lane Craig

Are there good arguments for God’s existence? Have the so-called New Atheists shown that the arguments for God are no good?


It’s perhaps something of a surprise that almost none of the so-called New Atheists has anything to say about arguments for God’s existence. Instead, they to tend to focus on the social effects of religion and question whether religious belief is good for society. One might justifiably doubt that the social impact of an idea for good or ill is an adequate measure of its truth, especially when there are reasons being offered to think that the idea in question really is true. Darwinism, for example, has certainly had at least some negative social influences, but that’s hardly grounds for thinking the theory to be false and simply ignoring the biological evidence in its favor.

Perhaps the New Atheists think that the traditional arguments for God’s existence are now passé and so no longer need refutation. If so, they are naïve. Over the last generation there has been a revival of interest among professional philosophers, whose business it is to think about difficult metaphysical questions, in arguments for the existence of God. This resurgence of interest has not escaped the notice of even popular culture. In 1980 Time ran a major story entitled “Modernizing the Case for God,” which described the movement among contemporary philosophers to refurbish the traditional arguments for God’s existence. Time marveled,

In a quiet revolution in thought and argument that hardly anybody could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or ordinary believers, but in the crisp intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse.1

According to the article, the noted American philosopher Roderick Chisholm opined that the reason atheism was so influential in the previous generation is that the brightest philosophers were atheists; but today, he observes, many of the brightest philosophers are theists, using a tough-minded intellectualism in defense of that belief.

The New Atheists are blissfully ignorant of this ongoing revolution in Anglo-American philosophy.2 They are generally out of touch with cutting-edge work in this field. About the only New Atheist to interact with arguments for God’s existence is Richard Dawkins. In his book The God Delusion, which has become an international best-seller, Dawkins examines and offers refutations of many of the most important arguments for God.3 He deserves credit for taking the arguments seriously. But are his refutations cogent? Has Dawkins dealt a fatal blow to the arguments?

Well, let’s look at some of those arguments and see. But before we do, let’s get clear what makes for a “good” argument. An argument is a series of statements (called premises) leading to a conclusion. A sound argument must meet two conditions: (1) it is logically valid (i.e., its conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic), and (2) its premises are true. If an argument is sound, then the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. But to be a good argument, it’s not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true. A logically valid argument that has, wholly unbeknownst to us, true premises isn’t a good argument for the conclusion. The premises have to have some degree of justification or warrant for us in order for a sound argument to be a good one. But how much warrant? The premises surely don’t need to be known to be true with certainty (we know almost nothing to be true with certainty!). Perhaps we should say that for an argument to be a good one the premises need to be probably true in light of the evidence. I think that’s fair, though sometimes probabilities are difficult to quantify. Another way of putting this is that a good argument is a sound argument in which the premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their opposites. You should compare the premise and its negation and believe whichever one is more plausibly true in light of the evidence. A good argument will be a sound argument whose premises are more plausible than their negations.

Given that definition, the question is this: Are there good arguments for God’s existence? Has Dawkins in particular shown that the arguments for God are no good? In order to find out, let’s look at five arguments for God’s existence.

Further reading

The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God | Reasonable Faith

 

[Derideo_Te]

For a complete "myth" it sure as hell seems to have touched a nerve or two.

Nope!

Never ending stupidity is what irritates people!

The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God




William Lane Craig

Are there good arguments for God’s existence? Have the so-called New Atheists shown that the arguments for God are no good?


It’s perhaps something of a surprise that almost none of the so-called New Atheists has anything to say about arguments for God’s existence. Instead, they to tend to focus on the social effects of religion and question whether religious belief is good for society. One might justifiably doubt that the social impact of an idea for good or ill is an adequate measure of its truth, especially when there are reasons being offered to think that the idea in question really is true. Darwinism, for example, has certainly had at least some negative social influences, but that’s hardly grounds for thinking the theory to be false and simply ignoring the biological evidence in its favor.

Perhaps the New Atheists think that the traditional arguments for God’s existence are now passé and so no longer need refutation. If so, they are naïve. Over the last generation there has been a revival of interest among professional philosophers, whose business it is to think about difficult metaphysical questions, in arguments for the existence of God. This resurgence of interest has not escaped the notice of even popular culture. In 1980 Time ran a major story entitled “Modernizing the Case for God,” which described the movement among contemporary philosophers to refurbish the traditional arguments for God’s existence. Time marveled,

In a quiet revolution in thought and argument that hardly anybody could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or ordinary believers, but in the crisp intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse.1

According to the article, the noted American philosopher Roderick Chisholm opined that the reason atheism was so influential in the previous generation is that the brightest philosophers were atheists; but today, he observes, many of the brightest philosophers are theists, using a tough-minded intellectualism in defense of that belief.

The New Atheists are blissfully ignorant of this ongoing revolution in Anglo-American philosophy.2 They are generally out of touch with cutting-edge work in this field. About the only New Atheist to interact with arguments for God’s existence is Richard Dawkins. In his book The God Delusion, which has become an international best-seller, Dawkins examines and offers refutations of many of the most important arguments for God.3 He deserves credit for taking the arguments seriously. But are his refutations cogent? Has Dawkins dealt a fatal blow to the arguments?

Well, let’s look at some of those arguments and see. But before we do, let’s get clear what makes for a “good” argument. An argument is a series of statements (called premises) leading to a conclusion. A sound argument must meet two conditions: (1) it is logically valid (i.e., its conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic), and (2) its premises are true. If an argument is sound, then the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. But to be a good argument, it’s not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true. A logically valid argument that has, wholly unbeknownst to us, true premises isn’t a good argument for the conclusion. The premises have to have some degree of justification or warrant for us in order for a sound argument to be a good one. But how much warrant? The premises surely don’t need to be known to be true with certainty (we know almost nothing to be true with certainty!). Perhaps we should say that for an argument to be a good one the premises need to be probably true in light of the evidence. I think that’s fair, though sometimes probabilities are difficult to quantify. Another way of putting this is that a good argument is a sound argument in which the premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their opposites. You should compare the premise and its negation and believe whichever one is more plausibly true in light of the evidence. A good argument will be a sound argument whose premises are more plausible than their negations.

Given that definition, the question is this: Are there good arguments for God’s existence? Has Dawkins in particular shown that the arguments for God are no good? In order to find out, let’s look at five arguments for God’s existence.

Further reading

The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God | Reasonable Faith

Logically there is no omnipotent God since omnipotence is a logic contradiction in itself. That meets the criteria of your quote above and logically establishes that an omnipotent God cannot exist. Ergo there is no need to waste any time going any further.

 

[Boss]

omnipotence is a logic contradiction in itself.

Not if omnipotence created logic.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nope!

Never ending stupidity is what irritates people!

The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God




William Lane Craig

Are there good arguments for God’s existence? Have the so-called New Atheists shown that the arguments for God are no good?


It’s perhaps something of a surprise that almost none of the so-called New Atheists has anything to say about arguments for God’s existence. Instead, they to tend to focus on the social effects of religion and question whether religious belief is good for society. One might justifiably doubt that the social impact of an idea for good or ill is an adequate measure of its truth, especially when there are reasons being offered to think that the idea in question really is true. Darwinism, for example, has certainly had at least some negative social influences, but that’s hardly grounds for thinking the theory to be false and simply ignoring the biological evidence in its favor.

Perhaps the New Atheists think that the traditional arguments for God’s existence are now passé and so no longer need refutation. If so, they are naïve. Over the last generation there has been a revival of interest among professional philosophers, whose business it is to think about difficult metaphysical questions, in arguments for the existence of God. This resurgence of interest has not escaped the notice of even popular culture. In 1980 Time ran a major story entitled “Modernizing the Case for God,” which described the movement among contemporary philosophers to refurbish the traditional arguments for God’s existence. Time marveled,

In a quiet revolution in thought and argument that hardly anybody could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or ordinary believers, but in the crisp intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse.1

According to the article, the noted American philosopher Roderick Chisholm opined that the reason atheism was so influential in the previous generation is that the brightest philosophers were atheists; but today, he observes, many of the brightest philosophers are theists, using a tough-minded intellectualism in defense of that belief.

The New Atheists are blissfully ignorant of this ongoing revolution in Anglo-American philosophy.2 They are generally out of touch with cutting-edge work in this field. About the only New Atheist to interact with arguments for God’s existence is Richard Dawkins. In his book The God Delusion, which has become an international best-seller, Dawkins examines and offers refutations of many of the most important arguments for God.3 He deserves credit for taking the arguments seriously. But are his refutations cogent? Has Dawkins dealt a fatal blow to the arguments?

Well, let’s look at some of those arguments and see. But before we do, let’s get clear what makes for a “good” argument. An argument is a series of statements (called premises) leading to a conclusion. A sound argument must meet two conditions: (1) it is logically valid (i.e., its conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic), and (2) its premises are true. If an argument is sound, then the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. But to be a good argument, it’s not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true. A logically valid argument that has, wholly unbeknownst to us, true premises isn’t a good argument for the conclusion. The premises have to have some degree of justification or warrant for us in order for a sound argument to be a good one. But how much warrant? The premises surely don’t need to be known to be true with certainty (we know almost nothing to be true with certainty!). Perhaps we should say that for an argument to be a good one the premises need to be probably true in light of the evidence. I think that’s fair, though sometimes probabilities are difficult to quantify. Another way of putting this is that a good argument is a sound argument in which the premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their opposites. You should compare the premise and its negation and believe whichever one is more plausibly true in light of the evidence. A good argument will be a sound argument whose premises are more plausible than their negations.

Given that definition, the question is this: Are there good arguments for God’s existence? Has Dawkins in particular shown that the arguments for God are no good? In order to find out, let’s look at five arguments for God’s existence.

Further reading

The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God | Reasonable Faith

Logically there is no omnipotent God since omnipotence is a logic contradiction in itself. That meets the criteria of your quote above and logically establishes that an omnipotent God cannot exist. Ergo there is no need to waste any time going any further.

If the truth is important to you,you would definitely go further with the reading. The omnipotent God created all.

 

[edthecynic]

We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead.

Two peas in a pod.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...the-facts-behind-the-myth-of-abiogenesis.html

Prufrock's Lair
Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks.

 

[edthecynic]

I understand the Bible very well, I have read the entire thing, and done intensive studies on the Scriptures. I don't mind arguing with someone about what the Bible says or doesn't say, and because of that, I am often labeled a "religious zealot" or any number of other god-hating labels. I will defend Christians and their points of view sometimes, because I feel they make a valid point or at least have the right to their viewpoint. This gets me labeled a "Christian wacko" by the god-haters. I see these god-haters every day here, and for you to waddle in and claim they don't exist, is laughable.

Why are know-it alls so pompous?

Prufrock's Lair
I'm well acquainted with the hypotheses, the research and the findings in the field of abiogenesis. Also, I understand evolutionary theory, inside and out. I know the science, and I'm current. Indeed, I'm light years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who routinely sneer at theists as the former unwittingly expose their ignorance about the science and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their dogma. These are the sheeple blindly following an ideologically driven community of scientists, which, since Darwin, is determined to overthrow the unassailable.

 

[edthecynic]

Man created religion, and the concept of ‘god’ subsequently; where ‘god’ as perceived by theists – an omnipotent deity ‘controlling’ human events – doesn’t exist. And because ‘god’ is a creation of man, the concept is imbued with the failings, fears, and arrogance of man – we see proof of that arrogance exhibited by Christians on this very forum, and note the hypocrisy.

To note the hate, arrogance, and hypocrisy of theists, therefore, is not to ‘hate god,’ but to recognize the fact that humans are fallible, where no one person, group, religion, philosophy, or belief has all the ‘answers,’ nor a monopoly on ‘the truth.’

You are factually wrong about a few things. Yes, man did create religion. Religion is the direct manifestation from raw human spirituality and spiritual connection. There is no evidence God doesn't exist in a spiritual sense. Something spiritual certainly does exist or humans wouldn't be spiritual creatures with spiritual inclinations, spiritually motivated to create religions.

Humans created spirituality, and have to exist first before human spirituality can exist. If you have evidence of spirituality preexisting humans then present it.

 

[edthecynic]

omnipotence is a logic contradiction in itself.

Not if omnipotence created logic.

That is illogical, there is no such thing as omnipotence! How can something that does not exist create anything?

Even God cannot change the past.
- Agathon

 

[edthecynic]

A "myth" is a widely held but false belief or idea. If you have proof that God doesn't exist, or there wasn't an intelligent designer, then present that proof, or stop referring to belief in God as "myth." Also, you don't get to define what is "valid" in terms of a theory. People fight you on these things because you arrogantly make proclamations that simply are not true, and expect the world to acquiesce. Fuck you! You're not any different than anyone else with an opinion.

No, you don't see the God-haters because you're one of them.

By that "logic" anything can be claimed to exist. A SuperGod that created the lesser Gods everyone else believes in. A SuperGod that made YOU so illogical that you can't see your lack of logic but instead see yourself as a logical genius.

 

[mamooth]

Not if omnipotence created logic.

Too vague to be meaningful. Please clarify. Once the omnipotence has created logic, is it forever bound by that logic?

If yes, then the logical contradictions of omnipotence prevent it from being omnipotent.

If no, then it's outside of all logic. Even causality no longer works on it, so you can know nothing about it. If it says "Love your neighbor", it might really mean "devour your neighbor". Once you've put God outside logic, you've turned God into Cthulhu.

 

[edthecynic]

It didn't take long for your claim to be "very much a Spiritualist" to go up in smoke.
"Fuck you! You're not any different than anyone else with an opinion". I don't see that response coming from a spiritually enlightened debater, I see it coming from the real hater here.
You patronizingly declare your willingness to "....defend Christians and their points of view sometimes, because I feel they make a valid point or at least have the right to their viewpoint." That's awfully big of you. I don't feel the least slighted by you not extending this generous grandiosity to my opinions. A hater's benediction is worth exactly zero. As is the phony rhetoric of the OP.
While you failed in your stated mission of "...calling them out, exposing them for the frauds they are." I have actually exposed you for the fraud that you are. Without even trying. Too easy. Yawn.

Telling you to go fuck yourself doesn't have a thing to do with me being spiritual. Who the hell do you think you are to judge me? You're entitled to your opinion, you aren't entitled to cram it down our throat as the only valid opinion. The only thing you've exposed is your ass. Now you need to take your self-important loud-mouth ass to another thread where you can spew your vile and make yourself feel like you "won" something here. Shitstain.

But it does quite obviously expose you as being filled with the SPIRIT OF PURE HATE!

 

[edthecynic]

Show me proof that God exists and I will show you proof he does not......boy that is impossible on both sides, like prove to me that aliens from outer space do not exist...

Believe it or not, you can be shown proof that God exists. The problem is, it's spiritual proof and you only recognize physical proof. That's not the fault of the proof, is it?

Your problem is that the concept of the spiritual only exists in the mind of humans. You must prove that spirituality preexists humans, like in rocks for example.