Atheists Are Most Likely To Be Angry At God

Submitted by: iLove 6 years ago in
http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/01/anger-at-god-common-even-among-atheists/

Take that, atheists.
There are 237 comments:
Male 621
"People unaffiliated with organized religion, atheists and agnostics also report anger toward God either in the past, or anger focused on a hypothetical image - that is, what they imagined God might be like[.]"

Might as well say: Some people get angry at fictional characters that do bad things! News at 11!

Ah-duh. I dislike any fictional character that I read about/see doing evil, hypocritical, self-centered things that harm generally innocent people or groups. I think most people are that way.

The worst thing here is that some people want to portray this as atheists somehow believing in God and hating Him. That`s some self-contradicting BS right there. The actual article says it includes hypothetical gods, and once you`ve really read the Bible, you know that some well known hypothetical gods can be pretty huge a-holes. (Joshua 10:40 or Psalm 137:8-9, anyone?)
0
Reply
Male 103
That`s like saying I`m angry at Santa Claus or the tooth fairy... XD!
0
Reply
Male 1,299
"Tribal people you talk about were far more uncivilized toward women and children."

To the contrary- the societal systems of small communities, tribal cultures and indigenous people typically FAVOR women.
0
Reply
Male 1,299
"You`re just completely wrong about Christian morals and Roman times. Where do you get your understanding of Romans from, the movies ?

All was not well in Rome, and if you could`ve seen it as it actually was back then you`d have been sickened by how they treated the poor, children, women, and how their law was met out. "

I apologize- i didn`t realize you witnessed these events first hand.

I`m far from an expert but from what I understand the claims that Rome was a Utopia are equally as false as that it was a dystopia.

I would much rather take my chances in ancient Rome than in modern Calcutta- or some Eastern European countries.

If anything- the things that made Roman life the most unbearable (if you were a commoner) would be the lack of modernization, and by relation: sanitation, medicine, etc.
0
Reply
Male 2,988
Atheist here, and I`m not angry at God at all. Hard to be angry at a made up play thing in the sky. I`m no more angry at this "God" character than I am say "Santa Clause", "Easter Bunny", "Zues", "Ra the Sun God" or "Ash the Pokemon Trainer" because they are tales of fiction, and are of no concern to a reasonable mind that is capable of observing the world around them. Simple as that.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@CrakrJak Well that would be all well and good, except Christian`s don`t just follow the teachings of Jesus, they follow the Bible. Which of course we both know justifies the abuse of women.

Why don`t YOU do some research into pre-christian European societies and culture?

Barbarian:

a. non-Greek.
b. person living outside, especially north of, the Roman Empire.
c.a person not living in a Christian country or within a Christian civilization.

What`s your point? It doesn`t surprise me that these people would be referred to as "barbarians" anymore than it surprises me that the English called Native American`s "savages".
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Bob: Gladiatorial fights were banned before 400AD. Unfortunately the practice did not end immediately, it took awhile for all the old Roman traditions to fade away.[/quote]
Constantine first passed the law to ban it in ~325 AD, but then repeatedly broke his own law by funding more games. But if they`re banned and yet the lawmakers keep funding them, can you really say their morals had changed?

Anyway, since this is the only point you`re now contesting, I think we can call it a day here. It`s been fun.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
NotTHATbored: Christianity did not make it easier or more acceptable to abuse women, Quite the contrary. Nothing Jesus said ever called for the abuse or mistreatment of women.

And the tribal people you talk about were far more uncivilized toward women and children.

Look up the words Barbarian and Barbaric, if you want to learn more.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
To be fair though I don`t completely blame Christianity for the changes that took place in Europe. I also think the changes happened because of pressure from the Middle East, the invasion of the Roman army, lack of resources, and in general the stress that any rise in the human population creates.

Still people did use Christianity to come in and make it more acceptable to abuse woman. Look in the Bible, are you telling me it doesn`t legitimize the abuse of women? Of course it does.

Early Christians also forced their religion on tribal peoples and leaders. Not cool.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Crackr Ha ha! No, no books on paganism. I don`t do religion. Thank you.

Once again though, I am talking about early paganism in Western Europe. I don`t know where you get your information from but pre Christianity many of the European peoples where very progressive in terms of how they treated woman.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Bob: Gladiatorial fights were banned before 400AD. Unfortunately the practice did not end immediately, it took awhile for all the old Roman traditions to fade away.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
NotTHATbored: Let me guess you`ve been reading books promoting paganism haven`t you ?

The truth is that Pagans did not respect women as anything more than semen receptacles. Children sometimes fared no better as child rape was not illegal. Women and children certainly were not free and were quite often abused, starved, raped, and killed. Paganism was not the panacea you imply.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Crackr I am not talking about how Christianity influenced Rome, I am talking about how Christianity influenced Western Europe. I am talking about England, Scotland, Germany, and France. What christian morale did there was to take free, sex loving, women respecting, pagan societies, and turn them into a bunch of monotheistic prude woman haters and you will still find remnants of their ideology in your "holy" Bible.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]one of them was the concept of equality in the afterlife[/quote]
The Roman afterlife beliefs (your soul goes to either the Elysian Fields, Tartarus, Asphodel Fields, or the Fields of Punishment depending on how much you sinned in life) were essentially a slightly more tiered version of Christian Heaven/Hell(/puragatory). Christianity`s afterlife beliefs did not introduce equality after death. They`re more or less the same.

[quote]monotheism[/quote]
Monotheism, polytheism and atheism are not morals, they are states of religious belief.

[quote]it ended gladiator fights[/quote]
Christianity became the state religion of Rome in 380AD. Gladiator fights are recorded as taking place as late as the end of the 5th Century.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Bob: Are you going to reject Newton`s work because he was an alchemist ?[/quote]
Not his physics. But I wouldn`t trust his chemistry.

[quote]I know you wouldn`t toss out all of chemistry because of it`s origins. Just as Christians do not toss out the bible because of ancient references to servants. [/quote]
Then why keep them in a book that is claimed to be the ultimate source of morality?
And stop calling it servants. You`ve already conceded that the conditions were those of slavery. Call it what it is.

[quote]Women were considered the property of men[/quote]
That is also in the Bible. The bit we were just talking about - selling women to be wives.
0
Reply
Male 185
Holy Crap! I really want to know what Bible Crakhead reads.
waitaminnit. No way he reads with the kind of made-up garbage he always spews.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Altaru: [quote]The "main western morals" are, more or less, the exact same morals that exist world-wide.[/quote]

Not by a long shot, Shinto belief is much different from western belief, as are the other asian belief systems from one another as well.

Perhaps murder is a somewhat universally held to be wrong, but in some cultures it is allowed and even encouraged under certain circumstances.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
DickenMcHunt: You`re just completely wrong about Christian morals and Roman times. Where do you get your understanding of Romans from, the movies ?

All was not well in Rome, and if you could`ve seen it as it actually was back then you`d have been sickened by how they treated the poor, children, women, and how their law was met out.
0
Reply
Male 1,299
At the end of the day it is foolish to assume that human morality stems from religion or divinity:

It invariably stems from community, society or coterie.

The assertions that Christianity had ANYTHING to do with the development of morality have been proven false. Undoubtedly Christianity continued to propagate the concepts of morality that had been established THOUSANDS of years before the storied events that ultimately led to Judaism and Christianity, however, there is nothing to suggest that there are any original concepts presented in either theology.

What has NOT been demonstrated thus far is that human beings are, in fact, incapable of independently developing moral codes and laws. To the contrary all the evidence available suggest the opposite: that is exactly how morality is developed, communal agreements stemming from a societal structure.
0
Reply
Male 1,299
Essentially all evidence points to:

Adult humans existing in communities with other adult humans are capable of developing relatively ubiquitous rules to maintain order including regulations on Murder/Killing, Sexual, and Property laws, including theft.

The only evidence that has been proposed to the contrary have been incidence of isolated youths- the key concepts being that these individuals have no reason to develop communal regulations AND they are always young. As we know from developmental science young humans are almost always quite self-serving, narcissistic and selfish beings- it has been proposed that this is a survival method. We deliberately developed these traits so that we ensured we would get the necessary attention from elders to get fed and protected, and etc- or on our own- to ensure the same.
0
Reply
Male 1,299
"You may not like the rules Christianity set down in Rome, But they were a damn sight better than what existed before. Women were considered the property of men, so were children, they were treated no better than slaves and could be killed at anytime by their husbands. Before then it was only illegal to kill a man that was a citizen."

This is actually not the case and exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of Roman Law.

It also ignores the point that has been made several times previously:

Laws and Rules virtually identical to those laid out in Jewish law and Christian theology (including the ten commandments,) predate these ethical codes by THOUSANDS OF YEARS, including in Asia and Africa (area`s relatively isolated from the "fertile crescent.")

Additionally, there was observable law and order in Native Americans (Including those native to Central and South America,) and also in modern isolated tribes in the Amazon and Across Af
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]The main western morals came from the Catholic church. Otherwise we`d be following either the Roman, Celtic, or other pagan morals and traditions.[/quote]
The "main western morals" are, more or less, the exact same morals that exist world-wide. If these morals supposedly came around because of your god or your Christ, then please explain how the same morals can be found in places like Japan, which deliberately cut itself off from other parts of the world for a fair amount of it`s history, or in tribal cultures in Africa or South America which have had little to no contact with civilization?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Animals do not have morals, to have morals one must first have rules, and I`ve yet to see any animal write down any rules.[/quote]
Since when do you have to have a written set of rules to agree that something is wrong?

Morals don`t come from rules, dumbass, rules come from morals. Because a "rule" implies that there`s a punishment attached to a certain action, which was determined to be wrong by a moral.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Are you going to reject Newton`s work because he was an alchemist ?[/quote]

Nope just alchemy, and the need to invoke God (it really doesn`t matter as he didn`t try to prove it).
0
Reply
Male 17,511
NotTHATbored: You may not like the rules Christianity set down in Rome, But they were a damn sight better than what existed before. Women were considered the property of men, so were children, they were treated no better than slaves and could be killed at anytime by their husbands. Before then it was only illegal to kill a man that was a citizen.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Bob: Are you going to reject Newton`s work because he was an alchemist ? The study of alchemy actually was the beginning of chemistry, Where do you think the word `elements` comes from ?

I know you wouldn`t toss out all of chemistry because of it`s origins. Just as Christians do not toss out the bible because of ancient references to servants.

As for the changes to Roman morality, one of them was the concept of equality in the afterlife, monotheism, it ended gladiator fights, taught people to love children and treat them with care (before then children could be abused, starved, or even killed), there were provisions made for the poor, and some emancipation of women.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Crackr

"I mention this because Christian morality did bring a whole new set of rules into western Europe."

Why yes it did, rules about sex, rules about what a woman could and couldn`t do, rules about what holidays could be celebrated, rules about how to handle non-believers, rules to control almost everything activity or person around! Great religion eh?
0
Reply
Female 219
True its not always the extremists i correct myself... but that is who i usually see on here that people are using as an example of all religion. All I am trying to say is that when everyone here says "o that just like religion" or They must be a Christian because they wouldn`t act like that"..it irritates me just as if i said all atheists are goth have a horrible life and listen to metal and cut their wrists. You cant group everyone into one idea. I believe in god but in no way shape or form believe being gay is a bad thing, I don`t preach to people trying to convert them all the time and I do not have those cheesy bumper stickers on my car. I still smoke, drink, and screw like everyone els and if i go to hell so be it cus I try to be a good person but dont call me ignorant because I believe in something you don`t that would be just as non-nice individual-ish as if I said your a heathen and you are going to hell for you crime against god..
0
Reply
Male 4,290
If the major moral issues were already established in other cultures before Christianity, then Christianity has no more claim to moral origin than my school textbook does to Pythagoras` Theorem.

Just because someone collated other people`s ideas in one book does not mean they should be credited with actually coming up with those ideas.

And certainly I would consider my school chemistry textbook an unreliable source if it contained, say, passages referring to alchemy, or something else we no longer accept.

Yet I am told that even though the Bible contains passages promoting slavery, which we no longer accept as moral, it is still the source of ultimate morality.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Just because you can cite a few similar rules that the Romans and Greeks shared with the Christians does not mean that today`s western civilization is not based on Christian morality and the new rules they set in place after the old Roman empire fell.[/quote]
I`ve asked you about five times now - which new rules did the Christians of Rome introduce that are the foundation of current Western morality?

We`ve established that ruling against murder is not original to the Bible. Nor is theft.
We`ve agreed that we are both more moral than the Bible when it comes to slave trafficking.

Please, give me an example of a current Western moral that was introduced exclusively by the Christians of Rome, which previous cultures did not consider moral.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Even if some of the rules were similar with the existing set of Roman rules, They were so different that Christians and Romans did not co-exist well at all. [/quote]
That had nothing to do with differing morals, that was because they were rejecting the Roman gods and worshipping a different god.

[quote]Eventually though morals did change, the Christian rules did eventually take hold and Roman society changed.[/quote]
You make it sound like the sound moral code of Christianity won over the Roman polytheists. When in fact it was only because Constantine I made Christianity legal in the 3rd Century, since he himself was a Christian, and subsequent emperors made it the state religion.

Christianity became the dominant religion in Rome because it was enforced by dictators who followed it, not because it was intrinsically morally better.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
I mention this because Christian morality did bring a whole new set of rules into western europe. Even if some of the rules were similar with the existing set of Roman rules, They were so different that Christians and Romans did not co-exist well at all.

In fact, Christians were used as lion food in the coliseum and crucified outside city gates. Eventually though morals did change, the Christian rules did eventually take hold and Roman society changed. Just because you can cite a few similar rules that the Romans and Greeks shared with the Christians does not mean that today`s western civilization is not based on Christian morality and the new rules they set in place after the old Roman empire fell.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: Morals must include rules, rules are backed by morals. If a culture`s morals change they usually insist that the a rule (or a few rules) change as well, However rules do not always change at the will of culture. And even if a few rules do change, The others remain.

Your morality may differ from mine but the rules (law) remains the same unless changed (by legislative means). So even differing moralities can co-exist so long as both we live under the same rules as each other.

When another culture tries to force their whole new set of rules onto, or substitute their rules for, the existing set of rules (Sharia law, for example), Then things get really screwed up. Both sides will claim their rules are superior to the others and the side insisting on their new rules will feel no obligation to live by the existing rules and they will not co-exist well.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]The main western morals came from the Catholic church[/quote]

Unfortunately for your argument, the catholic church back then condoned slavery. Furthermore Jesus himself never really said anything against slavery as an institution.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Eye for an Eye is still part of muslim morality[/quote]

Eye for an Eye is a part of extremist Muslim morality.

Fix`d
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]to have morals one must first have rules[/quote]

You`re contradicting yourself, you`ve earlier said the vice versa was true.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Proof does not remove faith, but if you don`t already have faith and require proof then your belief could be shaken if that proof is questioned.[/quote]
Why is that a bad thing? If new evidence disproves what I believed, it`s only correct that I should change my belief. Otherwise I`m just conceding that I don`t actually care if my beliefs are true or not, I just want to believe what`s comfortable and gives me hope and makes me feel better.

Personally, I want to hold as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible, because our beliefs affect our actions. And the way I determine which of my beliefs are true and which are false, is evaluating the evidence. If there is insufficient evidence to support a belief, I consider it false and do not believe it. If there is sufficient evidence, I do believe.

If new evidence comes up which invalidates my previous belief, then I change my mind.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Bob: The main western morals came from the Catholic church. Otherwise we`d be following either the Roman, Celtic, or other pagan morals and traditions.[/quote]
Again - which ones? The three biggest moral issues I can think of offhand, murder theft and slavery, I`ve already shown our current values did not originate with Christianity in any form.

[quote]Bob: Eye for an Eye is not Christian morality and it won`t ever be. Eye for an Eye is still part of muslim morality, even if some of them don`t practice it.[/quote]
I didn`t say it was Christian morality, I said it was in the Old Testament. I was just pointing out how similar OT morality seems to be to Egyptian morality. Especially after you said [quote]People don`t just write down things like laws without some sort of precedent, something to base it on.[/quote]
Is it mere coincidence that Moses` God-inspired morals overlap with Egyptian morals so much?
0
Reply
Male 36
Faith can also inspire people to strap explosives on their chests and blow themselves up in crowded areas.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
That is called faith in oneself. Faith is not a bad thing. Faith can give us hope were none would normally exist. Faith has inspired people to do great things. Without faith our world would be a much more bland and grim place.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
NotTHATbored: I wouldn`t go with you just because I really like pizza. hehe :-)

But seriously, A lot of successful people have began with an irrational thought or feeling or idea and turned it into something.

In fact if you were sent back in time and tried to tell people about the future, without bringing any proof of it with you, most people would definitely believe that you were irrational, perhaps even delusional.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"Proof does not remove faith, but if you don`t already have faith and require proof then your belief could be shaken if that proof is questioned. Faith can not be shaken in that manner, because it doesn`t require proof."

Yes that is true because faith is an irrational human experience based on emotion and not logic or facts. Why do Christians always brag about having faith anyway? I mean really, if I told you that I was having these completely irrational feelings and thoughts that I couldn`t prove or explain, told you I was going to go with them, and asked for you to join me in never eating pizza again would you? Really? REALLY? I hope not.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Bob: The main western morals came from the Catholic church. Otherwise we`d be following either the Roman, Celtic, or other pagan morals and traditions.

Bob: Eye for an Eye is not Christian morality and it won`t ever be. Eye for an Eye is still part of muslim morality, even if some of them don`t practice it.

Proof does not remove faith, but if you don`t already have faith and require proof then your belief could be shaken if that proof is questioned. Faith can not be shaken in that manner, because it doesn`t require proof.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Altaru: IF you had actually viewed the video at the link I posted they shown 3 children, not "a single, lone child".

Also, Children aren`t generally strong enough to kill or know how to kill anything bigger than a small dog or cat. That doesn`t mean they have developed a morality that tells them not to kill. Animals do not have morals, to have morals one must first have rules, and I`ve yet to see any animal write down any rules. Instead pack animals mimic the others in their pack and are born with certain instincts.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]As if God were some freakin` kid on a playground gaining power from people`s misury...[/quote]
If a highschool kid was asked to do a book report on The Bible, specifically describing the main character "God" from his words and actions (I mean the actual God character, not his Ghandiesque Son-Avatar), then that wouldn`t be an entirely inaccurate description.
0
Reply
Male 2,004
why direct anger and hate towards a big space of nothing, just a bunch of energy that goes wasted
0
Reply
Male 40
What is the point of being angry at God..? God loves everyone, people screw eachother over. God lets people make bad choices.

People who think God is `out to get them` are delusional. As if God were some freakin` kid on a playground gaining power from people`s misury...
0
Reply
Male 4,290
... Is "an eye for an eye" style justice fair?
Egyptians: Yes.
OT: Yes.

It doesn`t seem like there are many original morals in the Bible, so I fail to see how you can logically attribute Western morality to it and not the cultures that preceded it.
It would be like attributing Pythagoras` Theorem to the author of your high school maths textbook rather than Pythagoras, simply because you learnt it from the book rather than the man himself.

[quote]And if you require proof for you to have faith, then is it really faith or is it just belief ?[/quote]
That would be belief, yes. Is belief not enough? Did Jesus condemn the 500 he appeared before to Hell, by removing their option of faith and forcing them into mere belief? Did Thomas the disciple burn for having the temerity to ask to see Jesus reincarnated before he accepted that it happened?

As far as I can tell, Thomas is the smartest man in the Bible, because he checks for facts.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Bob: just because other countries had morals besides the Hebrews doesn`t mean they were any better than the ones you`re lamenting in the OT. [/quote]
I`m not saying they were better, but typically the claim is that the Bible is better - indeed, the ultimate source of morality.

You were the one who claimed Western morals came from the Bible, but I`ve just shown that the morals on murder and theft are not original to the Bible - they already existed, in the most dominant culture of the time.
It seems that the `main` Western morals in fact come from Egypt - or possibly somewhere even older.

Quick recap:

Is murder morally wrong?
Egyptians: Yes.
OT: Yes.

Is theft morally wrong?
Egyptians: Yes.
OT: Yes.

Is slavery morally wrong?
Egyptians: No.
OT: No.

Is it fair to punish a son for their father`s crimes?
Egyptians: Yes.
OT: Yes.

Is "an eye for an eye" style justice fair? <
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]successfully many times here on IAB.[/quote]

Really now?

Come back later then.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote] Feral children have been studied before, They have no sense of right or wrong, other than the rule of `don`t get caught`, not unlike a stray dog learns when it steals food.[/quote]
You`re going to bring up a single, lone child living in a society of animals as an example of humans being naturally immoral?

Seeing as how that feral child doesn`t kill his animal family, I`d say he still has morals, just not towards humanity (another species in that feral child`s eyes, similar to, say, a human stealing from or killing another animal). In fact, I think that when animals live in packs they tend to have morals and not, say, kill each-other without reason. Whadda ya know? A pack of wild wolves apparently learned the basics of living in a society of more than one individual from the Bible! I didn`t even know they could read, fancy that.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: What you are talking about there is a concerted effort by atheists to rewrite history concerning the founding of America, I`ve refuted those misinterpretations and fallacies successfully many times here on IAB.

Please don`t make go through all that yet again.
I`m tired and want to go to bed, aight ?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]It is well known that most of the signers of the declaration of independence, and the constitution came from a common Judeo-Christian ethic, they even wrote as much at the time.[/quote]

I`ve heard enough of this thrown around to say: NO, NO, NO! They were deists and those documents were inspired by Enlightenment ideas. Furthermore they even elaborated that whether or not God exists has NO bearing on day-to-day life.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Bob: just because other countries had morals besides the Hebrews doesn`t mean they were any better than the ones you`re lamenting in the OT.

It is well known that most of the signers of the declaration of independence, and the constitution came from a common Judeo-Christian ethic, they even wrote as much at the time.

And if you require proof for you to have faith, then is it really faith or is it just belief ?
As for the relics most of them are held by the Catholic church and even I don`t trust that most of them are real.

I`ve found that most people that have converted to Christianity did so because of others Christian`s personal testimony, not relics.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]And since you don`t believe no amount of proof would change your mind anyways.[/quote]
What makes you say that? I`ve repeatedly stated that if anybody provides sufficient proof of the existence of God, I would accept it (although not necessarily worship him).

And you make it sound like nobody can come back from being an atheist. There are plenty of people who have gone from atheism or agnosticism to various religious beliefs. In fact, there`s a list on Wikipedia, "list of former atheists and agnostics".
I think it`s reasonable to assume that at least a few of them felt they had enough evidence to believe.

So try us. It`s not impossible to go from atheist to Christian, and who knows what evidence it could take for me to turn. It might be what you have about these relics. It might be the mystery proof that fattpill had, but refused to share with us atheist swine.
0
Reply
Male 307
Meh - this is no great surprise. After all, something had to push people to explore alternatives to organized religion and anger can be a great motivator.

As far as more angry than believers? Again, not surprising - belivers will say, do or accept anything to "justify" their fictious beliefs and not look like an idiot (after all, look at the war going on here).

It`s much easier to accept that it is "God`s way" than get angry at their core beliefs, even when those core beliefs are loony and stupid - that could lead to doubt, which (here is that famous wheel going round) could lead to explorations of alternatives to organized religions...
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Bob: I never said I condoned it, was just explaining the differences. In 1200 BC those things were quite normal, In modern eyes they seem barbaric. [/quote]
That`s exactly my point. By current definition, those practices, condoned in the OT, are slavery. In your own words, "you can rename it and disguise it all you want", but we both know those practices are slavery.
Anyway, it sounds like you`re more or less agreeing with me here, so let`s move on.

You said Western morals mostly came from the Bible, and yet I`ve shown that civilisations preceding Moses (certainly the Egyptians, probably the Greeks) had morals about things like murder and theft, which were reflected in their law.
And on one of the most immoral acts I can think of, slavery, we`ve just agreed that the Bible is no better than the societies of the time, when slavery was commonplace.

So I ask you - which of our Western morals come from the Bible?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
LazyMe: I could point to some of the relics claimed to be from him, but you would doubt those as well.

Doesn`t matter, Faith doesn`t require proof.
And since you don`t believe no amount of proof would change your mind anyways.
0
Reply
Female 3,598
I`m not mad at god. i AM however, mad at the person that created this fictitious bullpoo.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] LazyMe: Jesus appeared to people from the day of his resurrection until his ascension .... yada yada yada.... This constitutes credible, eye-witness testimony. [/quote]

Not it doesn`t, even if it did, it wouldn`t be valid as it is simply eye-witness. It was an impostor who looked like him and everyone was tricked. ... I just pulled that, more valid explanation, out of my ass on the spot. If you`re gonna make extraordinary claims, you need extraordinary proof. Scripture does not count as it is:
a - wrong
b - unsourced
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Bob: I never said I condoned it, was just explaining the differences. In 1200 BC those things were quite normal, In modern eyes they seem barbaric.

Musuko: Please quit trying to troll me. Honestly your being a pest and that really makes you seem petty and petulant.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

Are you really defending the practice of BUYING wives?

Is that why you`re lonely? You think you can treat women like property, so they`re all understandably rejecting you?

If you want to play at "owning" someone, just get into BDSM. You`ll find plenty of people who enjoy it. I can recommend a few sites if you like.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@ericka225

It`s not just the extremists that are doing harm.

I bring up gay rights as one example quite a lot, mainly because I myself am gay and it`s one issue that I`m very close to. Many gay people, in your country and around the world, are made to suffer in the name of all sorts of religions; from teens who kill themselves after their parents put them through soul-crushing abuse and criticism in the name of their faith, to the two young boys that Iran hanged for sodomy not too long ago, and the equally heart-wrenching tragedy that thousands, millions even, worldwide wish to make a public vow of the love and dedication they have for their partners...but cannot, because of "moderate" people who use a religion as their excuse to stop it.

Condoms in Africa, abused children in Ireland, valuable cargo space on planes bound for tsunami-ravaged Indonesia taken up by bibles instead of aid...the list is long, and it`s saddening.
0
Reply
Female 4,440
yes, how CAN you be mad at something you dont beleive in?
I get plenty mad at people who beleive in god, cause they are stupid, but "god" him/herself? whatever.
0
Reply
Male 1,299
@CJ

Texts of law/rule predating the ten commandments by approximately 2,000-3,000 years have been found in Asia and Egypt. The view that morality or law stems from the Judeo-Christian Belief systems is, frankly, a narcissistic and egotistical fiction.

In communities untouched by western religions (Amazonian, African and Native American tribes) law and order was witnessed. Morality stems from human beings and human experiences- not divine intervention; just as the concepts of gods and religion also stem from human beings.
0
Reply
Female 3,598
WAIT WAIT WAIT... how can i be angry at something that doesn`t exist?
0
Reply
Male 25,416
meh...
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Bob: Exodus 21:7-11, Does not refer to `sex-slavery`. It refers to a man buying himself a wife or his son a wife.[/quote]
And the buying and selling of wives who have no say in the matter, and who I think we can safely assume they later have sex with, doesn`t sound like slavery or the sex trade to you?

[quote]In either case she is to be treated as a member of his family, not a slave. [/quote]
No no. She is to be treated like a daughter IF she is selected for the man`s son. It doesn`t say the same if they`re bought for the person themselves. It only says to let them `redeem` themselves, whatever that means, if they do not `please the master`. Nudge nudge wink wink etc.

And it also says what to do if you then buy a second wife. Having multiple `wives` who did not agree to be your wife - that sounds like a harem to me. That, or bigamy (weren`t you saying the other day how gay marriage would lead to marrying multiple people?).
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]People don`t just write down things like laws without some sort of precedent, something to base it on.[/quote]
Then perhaps Moses got his ideas from the Egyptian-dominated culture he was born into. As I just said and linked, they already had the concept of equality, and punishment for crimes like theft (indicating they considered it immoral), several hundred years before that estimate you provided of Moses` birth.

It would certainly explain the similarities in certain things, like the "eye for an eye" and "unto the 3rd generation" tendencies of the OT reflecting the punishment practices of the Egyptians.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Bob: Exodus 21:7-11, Does not refer to `sex-slavery`. It refers to a man buying himself a wife or his son a wife. In either case she is to be treated as a member of his family, not a slave.

Perhaps you reading that passage wrong, because it was written to prevent the mistreatment of wives and daughter-in-laws.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Bob: People don`t just write down things like laws without some sort of precedent, something to base it on. I`m pretty sure Draco didn`t invent his laws `out of thin air`. Not all the people living in Palestine in 1200BC were Hebrews, but they lived under Jewish law.

One of the great things about the area of Palestine was that it was located along the major trade routes and as we know wisdom, law, philosophy, and people moved along those trade routes right along with the commodities of the time.
0
Reply
Male 328
haha guilty.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Just realised I was cut off in my other post from earlier. So to finish my sentence:

[quote]I`ll instead reply that, as I`ve just shown, "all men equal" is by no means a Christian, or even Jewish philosophy. It was held, to a d[/quote]

... to a degree, by the Greeks and even Egyptians before them.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
... they can still draw the conclusion I am angry at God.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Just completed the quiz, and as I suspected, it was hugely biased.

At one point it asked me to imagine a God based on popular belief (even though I already said I was an atheist), so naturally I held in my head the image of a god I do not believe to exist - omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Christian God.

Then it asks me "after your period of suffering" (my chosen one was a bereavement) how much would you feel the following emotions towards this image of God, on a scale of 1 to 10:
trust, anger, betrayal, indifference, love, etc etc etc.

Now obviously, if I`m imagining a god who`s supposed to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent and he let someone close to me die, I would feel angry at that imagined god.

So I tick "anger", and hey presto: "Atheists are angry at God".

Even though I explicitly said, and the test repeatedly acknowledged, I was reacting to something I do not believe exists, they can still draw
0
Reply
Female 219
But is it hurting you Musuko42? The religion isn`t hurting people, the people that do things in the name of religion are, and that isnt every person who believes in god only the extremists who claim the things they do are what god want`s.. and there are plenty of non-believers out there that do some pretty effed up poo but you dont hear about it because you cant find a reason why they did it.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Ancient Egyptian law stuff.

RE slavery/servitude: please explain how it is not slavery when the person can be passed on through inheritance like a possession (the exact word the KJV uses actually), as described in Lev 25:44-46.

And I`m sure you`re familiar with the beating quote, so there`s not much need to bring it up again. It`s a fairly immoral system that allows beating of employees though.

And let`s not forget the good old-fashioned sell-your-daughter-into-sex-slavery rules described in Exodus 21:7-11. Or should that be sex servitude?



Oh, and if we`re going for words inspired by the Bible, I have some cracking Hitler quotes for you. But let`s not lower the tone.
I`ll instead reply that, as I`ve just shown, "all men equal" is by no means a Christian, or even Jewish philosophy. It was held, to a d
0
Reply
Male 1,222
God is dead.
F Nietzsche
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Also, I believe the 10 commandments became widespread and integrated into other cultures as well, long before the Greeks.[/quote]
Do you have any evidence that Draco the lawgiver was influenced by the religion of a group people who seemingly didn`t arrive in his country until many years after his death, or is it just something you hope to be true?

Fine, let`s assume you`re right and Draco was a closet Jew.
Choose an even older culture. Egyptians.

Before Moses was even born, the Egyptians held that everyone (except slaves) was equal under the law. Although they did believe that the family and children should bear some of the burden of a relative`s crime and be punished alongside them (sound familiar? Exodus 24:7).

Source on Egyptian law stuff in next post - can`t link and quote you see.
0
Reply
Male 174
That`s enough troll feeding for me, I will leave you on this note. Musuko42, you do make good points, but then I do to, it is ok to believe in something that has not been proven, this is where all studies start. You have to remember other people have a right to an opinion and therefore an hypothesis. I don`t agree with the all of the religious points of view put across and from personal experience I know how blind and ignorant some Christians can be. But if this is what annoys you most make sure that you aren`t equally as arrogant. I think it is best that we conclude that dragons might exist but it has never been scientifically observed.

All the best.... and I would have gone for the chainlink vest for the utmost in dragon protection.
0
Reply
Male 605
CrakrJak wrote "these issues were resolved in one of the bloodiest wars in human history, The American Civil War."

While the American Civil war was, undoubtably, an incredibly destructive war, and was the most costly in terms of loss of lives for the United States, it certainly wasn`t one of the bloodiest in human history.

Thought I`d mention that, as it`s not my place to criticise you (or anyone else`s) faith.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Bob: As for `slavery`, The bible mentions `servants`, and God instructs their masters that servants do have rights. This is not unlike the apprenticeship of children back in Victorian times. But the bible does state that once a servant worked off his debt that he/she would be free or could remain at work for payment.

Slaves do not have any rights at all, are not paid, are rarely if ever self-freed through payment.

These issues were resolved in one of the bloodiest wars in human history, The American Civil War. I do believe though that the words, "All men are created equal" were inspired by the bible even if Jesus did not really address the issue.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Bob: As for an innate knowledge of God, That appears to be a group/tribe belief. The documentary I seen did not seem to be interested in exploring that question, So who knows for sure if it exists also on an individual level.

Also, I believe the 10 commandments became widespread and integrated into other cultures as well, long before the Greeks.

Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 BC. Certainly certain laws and customs could have easily traveled that small distance in 600 years.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]No one is born with morals, we are taught morals from birth.[/quote]
Agreed.
Haven`t you said in the past that children are born with knowledge of God, in response to davy`s assertion that everyone is born an atheist? So shouldn`t a child born with knowledge of God be born with the knowledge of right and wrong too?

Your statement seems to undermine your point more than help it.

[quote]You can rename it and disguise it all you want, but the morals of right and wrong in western society mostly come from the bible.[/quote]
Such as?

Murder? The Greeks had laws against murder from ~600BC, several hundred years before even Judaism was introduced there. The punishment was exile.

Theft? Again, ancient Greeks made it illegal long before they ever read the Old Testament.

Slavery? Modern Western society has long since done away with that barbaric practice, even though it`s still condoned in the OT and never condemned in the NT.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Musuko: You have a pretty wild imagination there bub. I guess that you`ve invented this image of me in your mind and have to believe it to be true, otherwise it would wreck your whole theory about me.

I don`t feel the need to brag or `rub it in someone`s face`, In fact that`s an un-Christian thing to do. Pride goes before the fall.

Evidently you don`t know as much about Christians as you claim or you would already know this.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Musuko: Feral children have been studied before, They have no sense of right or wrong, other than the rule of `don`t get caught`, not unlike a stray dog learns when it steals food.

This has been in a documentary on PBS, so please go and tell me that it`s `biased` or `right-wing` and make a fool out of yourself.

Here is another similar one from National Geographic, Link
0
Reply
Male 1,299
This is clearly a flawed study-

It is impossible to be mad at a fiction. If an atheist blames "god" it cannot be equated to a Christian that blames "God."

One person is either blaming something they know doesn`t exist- which has X connotations. While they other is blaming something they know does exists, which has Y connotations.

They are mutually exclusive propositions- and correlations cannot be drawn between them just because of the central theme, i.e. "gods/god/God."
0
Reply
Female 26
All I could think about while reading this is, "Wow, these established reporters are talking about God like he`s like... real...."
0
Reply
Male 4,680
I curse God all the time, not because I believe in him but just because it sounds cool.

i.e. "CURSE YOU LORD FOR BRINGING THIS DISASTER UPON ME!"
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

"Also, I`m not lonely. I just refuse to answer your inane and irrelevant questions about my personal life."

You most definitely are, because if you weren`t you`d have long ago rubbed your happy, life-long marriage in my face in these debates as proof of your viewpoint.

Oh wait, are you using the self same argument that you lot are using against Obama regarding his birth-certificate? Hah! So wonderful!

It`s relevant, CrakrJak, because it shows from where your opinion derives. You`re loveless and bitter, so from there stems your desire to inflict the same on anyone else.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

"As far as what is right and wrong, aside from the bible, what is there to tell you what is right from wrong?"

See, this is the root of the problem right here; you assume that people can only know right and wrong if they are TOLD, and expected to obey.

"Now if you truly are an athiest why would you want to follow the morality of a God you don`t believe exists?"

Just because my morality and your religion`s morality has overlaps, doesn`t mean one does not source from the other.

Plenty of cultures that have never even heard of your religion managed to independently come up with their own variations of "murder...not a nice thing to do".

"No one is born with morals, we are taught morals from birth."

I don`t think you are qualified to say that. Neither am I. Let`s leave that one to the neurobiologists, shall we?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Musuko: Also, I`m not lonely. I just refuse to answer your inane and irrelevant questions about my personal life.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Musuko: You claim to not follow the bibles morality, yet you are following parts of it that are based on the bible.

As far as what is right and wrong, aside from the bible, what is there to tell you what is right from wrong ? If you say `society` then you must know that western society gets most of it`s morality from the bible.

Now if you truly are an athiest why would you want to follow the morality of a God you don`t believe exists ?

No one is born with morals, we are taught morals from birth. You can rename it and disguise it all you want, but the morals of right and wrong in western society mostly come from the bible.
0
Reply
Male 812
How about you take your crazy religious deduction skills and start using logic?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
mastrmind: If God didn`t love mankind he never would have sent his son to teach us and pay the debt of our sins.
0
Reply
Male 5,194
Lol wut? Like saying lions roar because they are mad at Santa Claus.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@ericka225

"If you dont believe its your choice but if its not hurting you"

But it IS hurting people. It`s hurting millions every day.
0
Reply
Female 219
Robswinddol- just because you think its a myth doesn`t mean it is doesn`t mean its not those laws your talking about are made so as not to offend some of the more lets say overly pious individuals that dont like when something doesn`t go exactly as they want. Not to please god some of the politicians dont realy care they just dont want people to bitch. And you dont have to be part of a religion to bitch. Its like when store has no skatebording in the parking lot rule. The store might not care but if enough people bitch about it cus they are worried about their car or they just dont like skate boarding, then the store is forced to put that rule into effect. If you dont believe its your choice but if its not hurting you, then why do you have to complain... because you dont like it? ... your just as bad as the stereo typical Christian bitching about every little thing.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
(cont)...reassess our position.

@NottaSpy

"Really? How exactly do you prepare for dragons?"

Asbestos vest! Duh!

And wetting yourself in girlish terror.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@joey7415963

"I agree it would be silly to put here be dragons in unchartered territory, but it would be all the more foolish to go unprepared for dragons."

Of course. That`s why it`d be equally foolish to write "No dragons here" before exploring.

You can evaluate the likelihood of finding dragons in the land you`re about to explore, though, so you know if you need to invest in an asbestos vest. You`ll base this evaluation on previous experience ("how many dragons have we found when we explored other places?") and such.

Sensibly, you`ll leave the asbestos vest at home. Likewise, we should put down the holy books, and we shouldn`t hold our breath awaiting sighting of ghosts/aliens/fairies.

If, however, we step in some big ol` dragon turds, or the clouds part and a booming voice demands we pay some damn rent, or an ethereal xenomorph comes knocking at your door asking to preach to you about Tinkerbell, we can reas
0
Reply
Male 1,455
...This article is pants-on-head retarded. Yes, many people are furiously angry at a being they don`t think exists. I for one am often enraged at the Tooth Fairy for no reason in particular. Makes. Perfect. Sense.
0
Reply
Male 881
[quote]but it would be all the more foolish to go unprepared for dragons[/quote]
Really? How exactly do you prepare for dragons? Are you also prepared for unicorns, aliens, and a herd of battle axe wielding cows?
0
Reply
Male 174
minus my first sentence, I read your post wrong.
0
Reply
Male 174
No your speaking coherently! I`m glad to see that you aren`t as dogmatic with your beleifs as you first came across to be. I agree it would be silly to put here be dragons in unchartered territory, but it would be all the more foolish to go unprepared for dragons.

Forgive the lateness of the reply, i had to pick up the moggie from the vets.
0
Reply
Female 39
Huh? I`m an atheist. The only thing I`m angry about is the way we waste our precious resources...
0
Reply
Male 6
S`cool. We`re more likely to be on the upper end of the intelligence bell curve anyway.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@joey7415963

"By your belief we will one day be able to predict your exact next words"

I said no such thing.

Any any case, however, it would be silly to assume that is impossible to do.

And if it does prove impossible to do, then that might lend credence to your hypothesis. But until we have exhausted that possibility, or something else comes to light that gives strength to your hypothesis, we should ignore the metaphysical, of which we cannot determine its existence, and concentrate on that which we know does exist; the physical.

Or in other words; when confronted with an uncharted land, don`t put "here be dragons" until you have explored it and found evidence of dragons.

Which as a ramble, does tie in rather nicely with the idea of assuming a god exists until proven otherwise: when drawing that map, we leave it blank until someone finds dragons. It`d be daft to put "here be dragons" first.
0
Reply
Male 518
Just did the survey, and now I see how they came to that conclusion.

They ask, "In your life time rate your anger at God" they then ask you choose from a 1-10 scale. Since some atheists were believers first, such as myself, we could choose a number. I did, and that is how atheists are angry at God.
0
Reply
Male 174
I dont underestimate... you do...

"Until we`ve mapped and understood it all, it`d be premature to speculate" on knowing that there is no life, we are perilous to follow what fate has for us. By your belief we will one day be able to predict your exact next words... although that wouldn`t be a fair test as I am almost certain what will repetitive, non-sensical statement you will next conjour up.
0
Reply
Male 2,229
Wow, that was a big pile of bullpoo. Almost all anger in current society is the result of alienation due to the class warfare that is going on. If your middle class, unemployed, or the poor; your ass is an enemy to the rich, elites and the corporate whore mongers. Like it not, the wealthy don`t want you to have rights, privileges or protections. This causes alienation, addiction, escapism; these dull senses and the reality of what is happening, but they don`t last forever, then Wisconsin happens. There is still hope for the United States.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@joey7415963

"and lonely, so very, very lonely"

Nah. Surrounded by similarly-bored colleagues.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@joey7415963

Nope! just didn`t notice it.

"The very fact that one can "modify your own moral compass" should give rise to a theory based on more than complex chemical reactions... as Descartes once said "Cogito ergo sum""

You underestimate how unfathomably complex the chemical reactions in question are.

Until we`ve mapped and understood it all, it`d be premature to speculate on a hypothetical supernatural dimension (let alone hang any morality/philosophy/religion onto it).
0
Reply
Male 174
@ Musuko42: I notice you chose to ignore my other post... on too high a level of thinking for you my retarded little troll friend?
0
Reply
Male 174
and lonely, so very, very lonely
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@joey7415963

"... So you`re an old troll, might explain why you`re so retarded you take the mick out of yourself :P"

Or just bored. So very, very bored.
0
Reply
Male 1,312
If you are an atheist and you are mad at god.... then you aren`t an atheist, so that`s pretty simple to figure out
0
Reply
Female 3,574
uh... wait, what?
0
Reply
Male 99
Can someone be angry at something that doesn`t exist?
0
Reply
Male 4,290
If anyone`s gonna be smiting, it should surely be Almighty Bob.


Also, I wonder if this survey would count the times I say things like "goddamnit" as me being angry at God.
0
Reply
Male 174
"@joey7415963

This troll (or at least, his account) has been here for two years longer than you (or your account) have.

So neener neener! :P"

... So you`re an old troll, might explain why you`re so retarded you take the mick out of yourself :P
0
Reply
Male 174
The very fact that one can "modify your own moral compass" should give rise to a theory based on more than complex chemical reactions... as Descartes once said "Cogito ergo sum"
0
Reply
Female 2,525
I took the survey and I agree with Volsunga, who said it is very leading. I don`t trust the results.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@joey7415963

This troll (or at least, his account) has been here for two years longer than you (or your account) have.

So neener neener! :P
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@dang007

Good point.

I guess then my meaning is that you take moral influences from around you and modify your own internal moral compass, rather than ignoring your internal moral compass to instead obey someone else`s.

This will be where CrakrJak or his ilk brings up some blather about there being an "absolute" morality that is better than a "subjective" morality, ignoring the notion that a religion that gave tacit approval to slavery in the past, but now rejects it, cannot possibly be working on an absolute morality, and must be subjective in of itself.
0
Reply
Male 174
@Musuko42: You`re joining me in taking the pee out of you??? This troll is retarded!
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@joey7415963

"I`m angry at Musuko42 `the god of trolls`"

Bow before me, mortal! For I might smite thee...thou?...thine?...if thouest doesest not...est!
0
Reply
Male 409
The results of this study don`t annoy me, it is that Christians are now going to use it as, "I told you so" fodder. I have heard the "atheists are angry at god" argument several times, and it is bull.

Frankly, as an atheist you cannot be angry at god; if you are, YOU AREN"T AN ATHEIST! You might have come to atheism by seeing the world as unjust and blaming god, but once you are an atheist, it doesn`t make sense any more.

What I find more revealing about the study is the cognitive dissonance of the theistic population. Who ignore the random and unjust nature of the universe because it only leads to the conclusion there is no god. Take for example, natural disasters, they do not `miss` areas with large religious populations. What kind of god kills his own followers with such randomness? Certainly not a good and locing one.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>>it`s built in and lets us decide what to do and not do, NOT what to obey and not obey.
<<<<

No it is part genes and part learned response from your environment. The learned response part was significantly influenced by the society in which you grew up, and thus by the morals and standards of the community. I would venture a guess that these morals and standards were based on some religion.

The problem with your argument is that you are following "another`s morality" but you do not even realize it.
0
Reply
Male 49
Theists would have you believe it`s a 50-50 choice. Either you believe or you don`t, which essentially means that you choose not to believe in a god/gods rather than not having an opinion one way or another.

The way I see it; as long as you don`t know, there is an infinite number of possibilities. The existence of a deity or deities is just one of those infinite possibilities.
0
Reply
Male 5,094
Well trolled, iLove, well trolled.
0
Reply
Male 174
I`m angry at Musuko42 `the god of trolls`
0
Reply
Male 881
Pssst, CrakrJak, you can`t use this article to bolster your ignorance. It is based on studies done in that sciency thing. You know, science, that vast body of knowledge in which you have no confidence. There are plenty of fabricated "truths" to be found on your favorite blogs, so that you never need to be bothered by reality.
0
Reply
Male 1,116
Zeus pisses me off the most. Slaughtering peeps with his lightning bolts. What a dick.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

Whereas you have a rulebook on morality you profess to follow, yet only obey the parts you personally prefer.

We don`t have that rulebook, so you can`t accuse us of the same selective obedience.

Instead, we have our minds. You know, that squishy thing between your ears. Our empathy, our compassion, our sense of right and wrong, it`s built in and lets us decide what to do and not do, NOT what to obey and not obey.

And because we THINK about what`s right and wrong, we can evaluate it, personally and socially, and adjust when we make errors, or when the established morality within us and around us doesn`t make sense.

Because you just obey another`s morality, rather than decide your own morality, you`re showing no moral fortitude at all. Strip you of your religion and your rulebook, and what would you be?

You`d be the same as you are now; lonely and spiteful, yet without the weapon of your rulebook.
0
Reply
Female 2,525
Well I imagine that anger at God can lead some people to atheism. But once you are an atheist I`m pretty sure you`re not angry with something that doesn`t exist.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

"Musuko: You seem to be running your own `hate campaign` here on IAB."

I don`t hate you, CrakrJak. I pity you. There`s a big difference.

I`m sad that you`re more than halfway done with life and you`re lonely and loveless.

"You have conveniently fashioned your own morality out of the bits and pieces you prefer, and then condemn those that don`t believe as you do."

Morality isn`t what you prefer. It`s what you believe is right. I would prefer to have my neighbour`s sports car, but I know it`s wrong to steal it from him. Even were I to be guaranteed to never be caught and punished, I would still not steal it; my morality is against it, even though it defies my personal wants.

"You even go as far as to call God a `tyrant`, sounds to me like you are one of the atheists that hate God, that this study is about."

I don`t hate him. He doesn`t exist. If he did exist as you describe him, he woul
0
Reply
Male 49
I`m angry at Thor `the god of thunder` for frying all my DSL-modems -_-
0
Reply
Male 566
Hard to be angry at something which only exists in other peoples minds. If there was a god he`d have to explain to me which part of his immaculate plan involves his chosen messengers from god sodomizing little boys.
0
Reply
Male 102
@Crakr

How is "god" not a tyrant?

Most people call themselves god-fearing.. Which would put one under the assumption that if you were to fear your all loving leader that he is in fact, a tyrannical leader.

When cities made "god" angry at the things going on there, he Smote the cities.


Tyrant fits, caring, loving and just, Doesn`t.
0
Reply
Male 50
It doesn`t say anthing about Atheists being "most likely to be angry at god." It says "atheists and agnostics also report anger toward God" which is a completely differnt statement.

This strikes me to be a pop-science or more likely a pop-psychology report. There`s no reference to the actual studies that were carried out, so you can`t in turn go and read the articles yourself to make informed comments.

It`s just another attempt by someone at IAB to spark fury from Atheists by challenging their beliefs and in turn having dry, dull arguements about the existence of invisible friends.
0
Reply
Male 723
"You have conveniently fashioned your own morality out of the bits and pieces you prefer, and then condemn those that don`t believe as you do."

Hmmm, sounds like every Christian I`ve ever met. Way to stick your foot in it, Crakr.

8-) LJ
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Musuko: You seem to be running your own `hate campaign` here on IAB. You have conveniently fashioned your own morality out of the bits and pieces you prefer, and then condemn those that don`t believe as you do.

You even go as far as to call God a `tyrant`, sounds to me like you are one of the atheists that hate God, that this study is about.
0
Reply
Male 247
I lold hard when I saw the title.
0
Reply
Male 49
@TheNine: Gnomes aaaargh! Sharp teeth, small beady eyes.... they are twisted allright! ;)

Considering christians likes to quote bible verses (even when they make no sense at all) I guess you won`t mind me quoting Sam Harris :)

"Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence what so ever."
0
Reply
Male 802
I think this article was written by someone who believes there is a God. It seems kind of hard to get mad at imaginary things. I mean yea I was kind of mad at the Ewoks for ruining Jedi, but it`s not something that causes me stress. I guess I have been angered by representatives of God(s) before, but those are just individuals and regardless of their beliefs they are responsible for their own actions.
0
Reply
Male 2,528
As an Atheist, I can say that Atheist don`t typically get angry at God. It`s stupid to get angry at an imaginary being. Instead, we get angry at the idea of God. We get angry at the fact that our fellow humans are so intellectually shallow and naive to whole-heartedly believe in such rubbish, even when all evidence contradicts their beliefs. We get angry that this unsubstantiated belief system runs so ramped that it unwillingly effects almost every aspect of our lives.

Stupid laws are based on this myth. Elections are controlled by it. It`s annoying. And I completely agree with Jesse Ventura when he said ""Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people`s business."

It is THIS that Atheists get mad at. Not at God.
0
Reply
Male 605
Atheist are more likely to be angry at internet comments about god.
0
Reply
Male 210
[quote]Musuko
People claim to have seen sightings of Elvis, even today.

And just because someone wrote down claiming that five hundred people saw him, doesn`t make it true.[/quote]
Disbeliever! when the King returns, you will not be allowed in the gym for the dance!
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak.

Although, we shouldn`t listen to you about compassion and empathy, what with your hate campaign against the love others share, and your own personal lack of anything remotely resembling human intimacy.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

"The problem with your question is this, The nature of human beings is to be selfish and greedy. Christianity seeks to instill compassion and empathy in us, Just as Christ has compassion and empathy for us."

As do many other influences.

All you`re telling me is that christians and other theists are too weak-willed and pathetic to be able to tell what`s right and wrong without being commanded and threatened by an all-powerful tyrant.

Must others are able to operate, and operate quite well indeed, with HUMAN compassion and empathy, rather than having to call upon a supernatural source.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak.

"Finally, we are told that about five hundred people saw Jesus during this post-resurrection period. This constitutes credible, eye-witness testimony."

People claim to have seen sightings of Elvis, even today.

And just because someone wrote down claiming that five hundred people saw him, doesn`t make it true.
0
Reply
Male 395
I hate Unicorns too! And Gnomes, devious bastards!
0
Reply
Male 88
How can I be angry at something that does not exist?
0
Reply
Male 24
This is the dumbest thing ever,how can i be angry at something made up???
0
Reply
Male 551
I guess I`m angry against Dumbo, Cinderella, Santa Claus, the Toot Fairy, some of the Smurfs (Not all of them), Spongebob Squarepants, the Invisible Unicorn under my Bed and the owners of that Closed-to-the-public farm where my little dog lives since he got into that deep sleep too
0
Reply
Male 1,815
RELIGIOUS DEBATE
I`ll admit I`ve caught myself exclaiming "why?" when things don`t go my way.
Don`t know who I`m asking.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
LazyMe: Jesus appeared to people from the day of his resurrection until his ascension forty days later. Ten distinct appearances are recorded in the Scriptures. They were at different places, times, and to different people. Jesus spoke, ate, drank, and embraced people. The eyewitnesses were convinced of his appearances. Finally, we are told that about five hundred people saw Jesus during this post-resurrection period. This constitutes credible, eye-witness testimony.
0
Reply
Male 53
@Heureux

and you think this non-existant group of people would care why? well, no worries, would suck to be doomed to exist forever anyways
0
Reply
Male 3,076
Religious people are most likely to kill because they believe god told them to...
0
Reply
Male 1,526
Those that read naruto are more likely to be narutards.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] Just as Christ has compassion and empathy for us. [/quote]
I`m pretty sure he`s dead and thus can`t feel compassion or anything for that matter.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] Exactly. How could I possibly be actually angry with God? It`d be like saying I`m angry with Thor. Or Sauron. [/quote]

ARGH! I hate fictional characters so much!

But yes... I think we are either misunderstanding the article, the article is wrong or the study is wrong.

Is it possible to be angry at something that doesn`t exist? I think so... say you`re reading a book and you don`t like a character or a fictional character holds opposing views to you and gets his way. That could make you angry. It would be completely illogical and emotional, but it still can happen and it wouldn`t make the book non-fiction.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: Again, just because other cultures have similar stories, and there are others besides ones that are similar to Job, does not mean that Job was written from them, or vice verse.

Volsunga: Job never said God was unjust, He said that his misfortune was not a punishment for anything.

Job 1:21 - The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.
Job 1:22 - In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.
0
Reply
Male 2,150
God`s a twit and I`m pissed and looney.
0
Reply
Male 762
I am angry with the tooth fairy as well.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@Negativitron
Oh I see. Sorry IABer`s will tell you I don`t think very well. ;-P
0
Reply
Male 1,054
"i think the idea of a conscious afterlife as anything other than decayed organic matter is silly."

Silly like not using proper punctuation?

Never mind.

What if it turns out that atheists, when they die, get what they believe?

As everyone else returns to God (by any and all names) in accordance with their beliefs, atheists meet the Creator, who gives them what they believed in, and they simply "poof" of out existence forever?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@Oldfrt

It`s called sarcasm silly.
0
Reply
Male 66
@ handys

It`s really more of a though experiment than anything, a hypothetical if you will.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@Negativtron replied:
Little question for the believers:
Would a godless world where everyone tried to accept everyone and relieve the suffering and pain of others, out of compassion for their fellow humans be inherently better than a world with religion where such efforts were entirely optional, or at the very least, simply encouraged? if so, which scenario would have more people going to heaven?

handys003 responded:
Non-sequitur. Does not matter religious or non- religious societies. All societies are made up consisting of different mores and values. At a number of 6 billion alone mathematically even if non-religious we would still not all be compassionate. Emotions are triggered by chemical productions in the brain.
0
Reply
Male 604
Oldfrt, you can count me in the "don`t believe in any god or heaven or hell" crowd. i think the idea of a conscious afterlife as anything other than decayed organic matter is silly.
0
Reply
Male 684
so atheist are angry at nothing? darn you god, I don`t believe you exist, but I`m angry with you? Don`t they pay people to edit out mistakes anymore?
0
Reply
Male 749
I once worked with an avowed atheist. He believed God does not exist, but then he also believed that when he dies, he`ll go to hell and hang out with all the hookers and have one big eternal party. When I pointed out that belief in hell and the devil implied belief in God and heaven, or could just be a different belief in the nature of God (Satan as God), he babbled for a minute then ran away. I think many atheists are, for the most part, actually believers, in an ironic way. Sorta like spiritual hipsters.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
being angry at God = being angry about circumstances beyond your control. If you blame those circumstances on God, 1) you`re not really an atheist and 2) no matter what you call yourself, you`re avoiding responsibility for your reaction to those circumstances.
0
Reply
Male 604
If you`re angry at imaginary friends, then yeah that can be a bad thing for your sanity.
0
Reply
Female 631
lol oxymoron.
also a logical fallacy in the argument.

a couple actually.
few does not mean all.
second, I generally find in my experience that people don`t tend to worship something they don`t like. so someone who still believes is most likely happy, where as someone who no longer believes usually has some reason for it.


"Stupidity does not reign, but it casts a shadow making intelligence harder to see."
0
Reply
Male 1,547
cont...
(more so than any other biblical literature, even if we grant the rest absolutist truth for the sake of argument). The story is mirrored, in some cases almost to the word (minus the names) by neighboring cultures. I chose to mention Lokasenna because it is a more recent and evolved version of the same story that gets right to the point of the conflict between higher powers without using a mortal as a proxy.
0
Reply
Male 1,547
@Crakrjak
[quote](Job 42:7) ..."I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has"[/quote]

The "truth" Job "spoke about Yahweh" is that he did not deserve the treatment bestowed upon him and Yahweh was unjust. Throughout the entirety of the book, the narrator, as well as the character of Yahweh attest to Job`s infallibility. Contrary to the friends of Job that Yahweh scolds in the above quote who kept telling Job that he must be in the wrong because Yahweh is infallible.

As for Satan, this version isn`t a foil to Yahweh, he is a servant of his court whose purpose is to act as a judge of Yahweh`s law. He is an ancient stereotype of the `cheating lawyer`. They aren`t really the Hebrew deities, they are archetypical Semitic pagan gods with the Hebrew names slapped on. This is just s retelling of the same myth as other earlier cultures have with different names (more so than an
0
Reply
Male 66
@ CrackrJack
I do agree that people, to varying degrees, are self serving. However, if the human race was entirely self serving, then we would have never made it as a species at all, which we did for a few million years pretty effectively before civilization. Also, would the actual source of that empathy actually make a difference? What if it was simply instilled by a strong public education system that stated that service to others was the highest form of human action?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
As to the topic regarding "death" you know what:



I`M STILL ALIVE!!!
0
Reply
Male 649
How can you be angry with something that you don`t believe in?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
You gave Baalthazaaq a test regarding Urwa.

So I ask you examine the sources cited here.

Numbers:12 and 13 look promising, but do check the entire section of that article.
0
Reply
Male 62
you shall know them by their fruit.
0
Reply
Male 66
Little question for the believers:
Would a godless world where everyone tried to accept everyone and relieve the suffering and pain of others, out of compassion for their fellow humans be inherently better than a world with religion where such efforts were entirely optional, or at the very least, simply encouraged? if so, which scenario would have more people going to heaven?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Negativitron: The problem with your question is this, The nature of human beings is to be selfish and greedy. Christianity seeks to instill compassion and empathy in us, Just as Christ has compassion and empathy for us.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: I honestly don`t believe that assertion.
If so, Why wouldn`t he source it or link to it in some way ? Instead he brings up viking mythology and Lokasenna, which has nothing to do with nor any connection with the story of Job.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]I don`t know how old your grandfather was when he died, but my mom was only 49 years old.[/quote]


Well true, he was 85 years old and a diabetic. But I think I was 12 years old back then. Then again I was in the Boy Scouts with Life Rank and 17 years old when a 10-12 year old member of the SAME TROOP passed away. I simply wished the best for his parents and moved on. Keep in mind I was back then as I am today ambivilent on Gods existence.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@CrakrJak

Well of COURSE you wouldn`t find it there silly!
That iteration is from repeated (mis)translations of a very old (ancient) text!

You dodged Volsunga`s assertion.
0
Reply
Male 639
Took the test, it`s garbage. But the result is still valid, they probably did get people say that they were angry at god at one point or were still angry at their concept of a god. Take the test if you want to, but it`s poorly worded all the way throughout if you say you`re atheist, not sure how it goes if you are religious but it was garbage for me.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: I don`t know how old your grandfather was when he died, but my mom was only 49 years old.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Volsunga: I looked up the whole chapter of Job 42 and did not see any of what you wrote written there.
Job 42

I have no idea where you are getting this, Satan was testing God, theory.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]After a lot of praying, counseling, and suffering of my own, I came to realize that it was just her time.[/quote]

Meh, never went through that much grief when my grandfather died. I think my mother (it was her father after all) took it pretty well too.
0
Reply
Female 219
If you dont believe thats fine its your right not to and i am one not to preach because you can tell someone a sign a blue but they insist its red then you cant make them see is as a blue sign. You cant force your beliefs on someone nor should you and that will usually end up hurting your cause more than helping. However if you are saying something doesn`t exist and constantly trying to take someone else`s hope away just because not everything has gone perfect in your life or you haven`t gotten everything you asked for then you are a douche
0
Reply
Male 1,547
@CrakrJak/Goaliejerry
You are both making a severe misrepresentation of the Book of Job based on the Jewish attempt to make it not conflict with dogma and other texts. Job is a very old story from when the Jews were henotheistic and Yahweh wasn`t as "all powerful" and "infallible" as he is in other Jewish texts. The whole point of the book can be summed up by 42:7. Yahweh [quote]tells the reader[/quote] he is in the wrong. It wasn`t a test of Job, it was a test of Yahweh by Satan to see if he would sacrifice his integrity for pride. For those familiar with viking mythology, it`s basically, Lokasenna. It`s an archaic piece of mythology that is irrelevant to moral teachings of Jews and Christians. Until the challenges of the enlightenment, Job was mostly ignored due to its contradiction of other texts. Both theists and atheists should disregard it in intellectual arguments.
0
Reply
Male 813
CrakrJak, the word you were looking for was "denial".
0
Reply
Male 88
not me bro... i just don`t believe, its simple
0
Reply
Male 1,399
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
0
Reply
Male 17,511
goaliejerry: The reason you aren`t "in" on the secret is because you don`t have faith. In actuality there really is no "secret", it`s all written in the bible.

Job was tested, as we all are. Sometimes we fail in that testing because no one is perfect.

My mother fought cancer for four years, She was a very faithful Christian and prayed a lot. The cancer disappeared and she was fine for about a year, but it had metastasized. She knew what the prognosis was, she was a nurse. She suffered for another year in intractable pain. She remained faithful, she never cursed God, she never asked why, or whined about it. When death came it was a relief for her.

I struggled with my own faith afterward, I`ll be honest. After a lot of praying, counseling, and suffering of my own, I came to realize that it was just her time. God took her home, Her job here on earth was done.
0
Reply
Male 1,547
@fatpill
Pretentious, adj; Marked by an unwarranted claim to importance or distinction. (The Concise Oxford English Dictionary [Eleventh Edition])

Please take an ethics class. Absolutist ethics are not even close to the only system. It is also absurd because it`s based on an informal fallacy, (the argument from authority). Consequentialism, Deontology, Utilitarianism, Emotivism, relativism, nihilism, and virtue ethics are all sound ethical systems that do not require an absolute dictator. I personally am a consequentialist, which does not depend on "what I`m currently feeling". It`s a common absolutist tactic to define any other system as being relativist (the weakest system) despite the claims they are actually making.
0
Reply
Male 535
LandoGriffin got the point!
0
Reply
Male 3,842
Here`s a quote from the article:

"People unaffiliated with organized religion, atheists and agnostics also report anger toward God either in the past, or anger focused on a hypothetical image - that is, what they imagined God might be like - said lead study author Julie Exline"

In other words, if I am understanding this correctly: an atheist who does not believe in God is supposed to imagine God hypothetically. Then they were to express their emotions regarding that hypothetical image. Yeah, of course the atheists aren`t going to like that idea that they think people falsely believe in. That`s because they don`t believe in it, so of course it will make them angry because so many suckers are fooled, in the opinion of the atheist.
0
Reply
Male 639
There are plenty of people who I feel claim to be atheist but in reality are mad at their god(s) and disown them to make a statement. Pure speculation, but I`ve seen a lot of people who instantly go from anger at God to denial of God, seems like there should be a period of rational thought in between, but whatever.
0
Reply
Male 1,582
Seeing as how us actual atheists don`t believe in any sort of god, how is there one for us to be mad at.
It`s cool if you`re religious or on the fence. But claiming to be angry at a higher power, and saying you`re an atheist is hypocritical and you`re not a true atheist.
However, I see someone blaming bad luck or something of the sort and just using the name "God" as an improper reference... Well then you`re just dumb and shouldn`t talk anyways.
0
Reply
Male 1,013
By that logic does that mean that believers are angry that a self purported mass murderer doesn`t exist?
0
Reply
Male 4,014
I`ve never once been satisfied with the religious answer to "why do bad things happen to good people."

Citing Book of Job doesn`t cut it. That has as its literal answer "don`t ask, you can`t understand. Just TRUST us (and do what we tell you or you are going to burn in eternal hellfire. Now give us $$$ and be afraid)." What the f*ck kind of answer is that to the most basic question?

Bible huggers are the ancient equivalent of hipsters - acting like they are so "in" on the secret, but everyone knows they are full of $hit.
0
Reply
Male 3,745
"Idiotic article is idiotic. If you are angry at god, you aren`t an athiest. Period."

tada...

"The only people more annoying than believers are I-A-B atheists."

BUT WE HAVE GERRY!!!
0
Reply
Male 3,482
There`s a god to be mad at?

Well, sh*t, I thought it was just bad luck and my own dumb decisions, when all along I could have blamed all my misfortune upon an imaginary figure in the sky.

I don`t see how it would change sh*t, since, you know, what happens happens anyway, whether the imaginary figure in the sky causes it or not.
0
Reply
Male 1,547
@fatpill
That`s because you never word your posts on IAB as "what I think about God", you always word them as "What I know about God". It`s your pretentiousness that`s the problem, not your faith. Few of us could care less about what you believe, but when you state those beliefs as facts, then rational people have a moral obligation to call you on bullsh*t, especially when your "facts" are demonstrably wrong.
0
Reply
Male 541
Is article is misleading, and moronic. It should simply not have been made! If you`re pissed of at God, ANY GOD, you are NOT atheist.
Ig you USED to be pissed at God, you were so, BUT NOT when you were an atheist, so what does it matter?

"Research show that..."
Stupid bitches who write poo articles deserve to be fired.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
When someone says they are angry at "god," its not as if they are thinking of god in the Judeo-Christian sense.

I think its deeper than that. I get mad at "god" because so many people in the world delude themselves regarding his nature, act foolishly in his name, attribute good fortune (i.e. random luck) to his hand, yet rationalize away all the bad in the world (random luck) as "all part of god`s plan."

I`m disappointed in god for the injustice in the world, mad because dumb people build their worldviews around a figment, and sad at the horror and injustice done in his name.

Yeah, I may be mad at "god," but I`m more mad of f*cking idiots.
0
Reply
Male 1,547
I just took the survey, and HOLY SH*T THESE QUESTIONS ARE LEADING. If you choose the "atheist" option, they force you to focus on an "image of god" either "from your past", "from popular religious teachings", or "what you imagine a god might be like". Then you get instructed to define the characteristics of this hypothetical god, and then continue the rest of the survey as if you actually believe in this god. I understand how this makes it easy to incorporate many different faiths into the study, but it makes any statistics for atheists seriously misleading. Since that was the whole point of the article, either the professor or the author is not being intellectually honest.
0
Reply
Male 49
@Negativitron

As Sartre says "Hell is other people"

I`m an anti-theist and I can`t prove infallibly that there is a god(s) or if none exist. I just don`t want to hear about it. The fact that so many ignorant decisions are made everyday in the name of religion annoys me. So I agree with you people are annoying.
0
Reply
Male 4,745
SlothOfDoom
"Idiotic article is idiotic. If you are angry at god, you aren`t an athiest. Period."

+100
0
Reply
Male 1,547
This study is written with the assumption of a certain school of psychology that postulates that all emotions we experience are related to specific people, either real or imagined (or imagined versions of real people). It assumes that we blame any negative experiences on a higher power, to avoid incurring blame ourselves (usually real powers such as government or the boss at work). It also assumes that, given no real people to blame misfortune on, you imagine your own scapegoat (in this case, God). That being said, the conclusion is begging the question. All they really found out is that more people are pissed due to things out of their control (I could go into a rant on the growing size of government being the cause, but that would be irrelevant). All this shows is how unscientific psychology really is. We need to encourage people to go into neuroscience so psychology can go the way of astrology.
0
Reply
Female 1,963
Eh? If you`re angry at a god, you are clearly just not an atheist.
I mean sure, if there was a god who was like the god described in the bible, I would not think highly of him.
0
Reply
Female 1,190
almightybob1, what are you talking about? you SHOULD be angry with him!
...Sauron that is, dude won`t stop creepin`on people with that...one big eye
ugh
0
Reply
Male 430
I`m angry at leprechauns.
0
Reply
Male 1,341
@Negativitron

I have never once told someone they are wrong for the religion they believe in. I try to avoid the conversation whenever possible. But for some reason, my entire life I have come under fire from Christians telling me I`m wrong. Constantly. And that will never change. I think true Atheists are quiet with their opinions and aren`t trying to "prove" anything to anyone because there isn`t anything TO prove. Who knows who is right? I sure as hell don`t but in my eyes, religion seems ignorant and thats why I choose to believe what I believe.
0
Reply
Male 1,341
Hm... I don`t really have an opinion of "God" so much as I do the idea of the religion or religions.
0
Reply
Male 2,033
Idiotic article is idiotic. If you are angry at god, you aren`t an athiest. Period.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Never made sense to me that atheists are angry at God, whom they don`t believe exists. [/quote]
Exactly. How could I possibly be actually angry with God? It`d be like saying I`m angry with Thor. Or Sauron.
0
Reply
Male 66
Religious people are annoying because they are absolutely right, and athiests else is wrong.
Athiests are annoying because they believe they are absolutely right, and religious people are wrong.
Both groups are subsets of people that make up most everyone, therefore:
People are annoying because they think they are right and people who don`t are wrong.

Moral of the story?

People are annoying.
0
Reply
Female 177
How can you be angry at god, but be an atheist anyway?!
0
Reply
Male 1,610
Fivezones


0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]The only people more annoying than believers are I-A-B atheists.[/quote]

Wrong. Conspiracy fûcks are the most annoying. Oh, and blow me, fivezones.
0
Reply
Female 1,963
Eh? If you`re angry at a god, you are clearly just not an atheist.
I mean sure, if there was a god who was like the god described in the bible, I would not think highly of him.
0
Reply
Male 639
No shtit, if you look at the majority of atheists, it`s people who grew up in households whose parents were religious and taught them that God was fix everything in their phucked up lives and He didn`t, they then choose to deny the existence of God. This is why I felt the need to start my own branch of atheism, called apatheism, in which I never gave a phuck about God and just decided that it is unlikely that there is any sort of supernatural being. I`m sure most of the angry atheists would probably say they agree with the tenets of apatheism, but deep down they harbor a resentment for their Creator.
0
Reply
Male 56
Is this anger at religion or dislike for the god described in the bible?
My level of hatred to the god of the bible is the same as my level of hatred for Voldemort (i.e. none).
0
Reply
Male 1,231
How could I be angry at something I don`t believe exists? It`d be like getting angry at goblins, or an honest politician.
0
Reply
Male 675
I`m not even going to go to the many places I could on this. I`ll simply let everyone fill in the blank.
0
Reply
Male 1,929
As atheists don`t fear God, they are free to emote from time to time that whatever idea he represents is being a c*nt. Religious people can`t though.

I also blame the Borrowers for moving my stuff every now and again, but I don`t believe in them.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Sorry bub, but if you`re angry at God, you`re not an atheist.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Never made sense to me that atheists are angry at God, whom they don`t believe exists.
0
Reply
Male 1,021
The only people more annoying than believers are I-A-B atheists.
0
Reply
Male 15,510
Everybody is angry at God, it seems natural since God seems to hate many things
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Yes, of course. People who don`t believe in the existence of any gods are obviously most likely to be angry at one specific god. Makes perfect sense.
0
Reply
Female 676
0
Reply