The “consensus” view among atheists seems to be that atheism is reasonable and that religious beliefs are not.
So why are atheists angry at God?
We can become incensed by objects and creatures both animate and inanimate. We can even, in a limited sense, be bothered by the fanciful characters in books and dreams. But creatures like unicorns that don’t exist ”that we truly believe not to exist” tend not to raise our ire. We certainly don’t blame the one-horned creatures for our problems.
The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him.
I’m trying to remember the last time I got angry at something which did not exist. It’s been a while since I last played World of Warcraft, but that might be a candidate.
But atheists angry at God? That’s absurd. Assertions that there are empirical studies to that effect? Simply ludicrous. By definition, atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods. It is simply a matter of logical impossibility that atheists should be angry at God.
I’m agnostic about the existence of honestly consistent atheists.
😉
peace
KN,
Skepticism regarding metaphysics isn’t necessary. You can believe in the supernatural without believing in God.
fifth,
Feel free to answer my questions:
1. Where was the physical Jesus hanging out during all of the time from creation to his ‘birth’?
2. Was the body living the entire time, or did God only animate it when he wanted to moon someone or otherwise muck around with his creation?
3. If looking at the face of God was fatal (Exodus 33:20), and God’s body was really Jesus’s body, then why didn’t the disciples all die from the sight of Jesus’s face?
4. If Jesus already had a body, why did the Holy Spirit bother to impregnate Mary?
5. How did the Holy Spirit — a spiritual being — impregnate Mary? You’ve told us that it is “logically impossible” for a spiritual being to interact with the physical.
6. If incarnation is required before physical interactions can take place, as you claim, then it must have been Jesus, not the Holy Spirit, who impregnated Mary. So Jesus impregnated Mary to produce Jesus the Fetus. Setting aside the incest, would you care to explain how that worked?
7. Did Jesus’s body — the one he used to moon Moses — somehow get shrunk and implanted into Mary?
8. Why haven’t you asked these questions yourself? Why are you so gullible?
I’m an outright disbeliever.
keiths,
Feel free to answer my questions:
1. What were your beliefs about hell when you decided to abandon Christianity (in your early teens) and how did they factor into your decision if at all?
2. If your beliefs about hell did factor into your decision, were you aware at the time that Christians disagree among themselves about hell?
3. How much time did you actually spend researching the subject before making up your mind about it?
4. Have you ever read a book about hell, or do you just get all your beliefs from reading the bible?
Fair enough, Mung. You revealed some of your beliefs about hell to us, so I’ll answer your questions.
(I’d still like to know whether you think you, the Bible, or both are wrong, however.)
ETA: I’ll answer on the “Munging Hell” thread.
ETA2: A link to my reply.
Color me surprised as hell! A new era of detente?
🙂
See above,
You might have not liked my answers. But giving unpopular answers is not the same thing as refusing to answer
peace
Where do “books about hell” get their information Mung, if not the Bible?
I could easily quote some of your posts from UD that demonstrate your lack of honest consistency. But I won’t as that is not what this site is about.
fifth,
You gave some wrong answers, like claiming that the Bible doesn’t say that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Most of the questions you avoided, including this one:
4. If Jesus already had a body, why did the Holy Spirit bother to impregnate Mary?
How about posting a comment in which you quote the eight questions in order, with your answer underneath each of them? That way you won’t skip any.
*++++
E4P;
SZHell was never discussed in my family and never featured in the church sermons I heard. So I had no strong opinions about it.1
Hell was never discussed in my family and never featured in the church sermons I heard. So I had no strong opinions about it.
Mung,
I realize that providing a well-reasoned argument would slow down your prodigious commenting rate here, but do try to at least pay a little attention before unleashing OldMung.
Theists have a double standard because they fail to apply the same skepticism to their own religion that they do to all the hundreds of other religions.
Atheists aren’t making a claim. We lack belief in gods. That’s it. There is no double standard because our response to every religious claim is “Show us the evidence.” Thus far no one has.
How about applying The Outsider Test For Faith to your own beliefs?
It must be easy, being an atheist at “The Skeptical Zone.”
If atheists are not engaged in a double standard because of their lack of belief then neither are theists when they lack belief.
That’s the only claim that atheists make?
fifth,
A reminder to answer the eight questions, if you can. If you can’t, then why not acknowledge that?
keiths,
A reminder that asserting that an argument was addressed is not an answer.
You will, of course, provide a link to the post where you explained why your definition of an omniscient god excludes the possibility that God actually knows all things.
keiths argues that God is not omniscient because it is logically possible that God does not know that He is not being deceived.
keiths argues that God is not omniscient because it is logically possible that God does not know that He is being deceived.
keiths argues that God is omniscient as long as we define “omniscient” in such a way that it is logically possible that God can be deceived.
Duh.
Actually, keiths argues that omniscience, like omnipotence, must be limited to the logically possible, and that it is not logically possible for God to determine that he is not being deceived (or inadvertently deceiving himself).
Mung looks on helplessly.
Like I said. And like walto (with or without e or r) said. You don’t just get to redefine omniscience to suit your fancy. You claimed that the objections we raised had already been answered elsewhere. Link please. To a specific post. I was challenged to produce a specific link and I did. Surely you can do the same.
It is not logically possible that an omniscient God should not be in possession of all the facts.
Nonsense. You may as well argue that an omniscient God cannot know what is true and what is not true.
Mung,
That makes no sense. Being a theist means having belief. That’s the definition of the term.
The double standard, as pointed out to you repeatedly, is that theists do not apply the same skepticism to their own beliefs that they do to the beliefs of others.
That’s the defining characteristic of an atheist. Individual atheists may make other claims, but those have nothing to do with atheism per se.
Wow, that makes ideological skepticism sound like a virtue. 😉
If only one could be ‘more skeptical’, then they’d be…?
I’m going to go with “in my cult.” Skepticism is a cult. As with any worthwhile cult, it has levels. It requires initiates and those who are “really in the know.”
Indeed. Looking for the link that never appeared. Looking for the argument that never was. Just like Christians looking for Jesus in the sky.
keiths defends his positions. Just don’t ask for a link to anything specific. I was asked for a link and I gave it. Still waiting for the quid pro quo from keiths.
Is it safe to assume it’s not coming?
I already pointed you to it on another thread, doofus. Here it is again.
Mung,
Why ‘in your cult’? Why not simply ‘in a cult’? I was under the impression you don’t consider yourself a ‘skeptic’ nor a ‘cynic’, but just an ‘IDist’. 😉
“Oh please, Temple of Reason, let my skepticism grow – Natural-Physical Science help me – let me become ‘more skeptical’ about everything in my life, let me doubt even my own existence and any meaning, value and purpose for which I was born.”
Because given that the question was not directed to me, I was answering for someone else. I was playing the role of the skeptic.
You made an argument. Both walto and I offered rebuttals to that argument. In response, you posted a link to the original argument that we claim was mistaken.
Please provide a link to the post where you answer our responses to your argument. A link to the original argument doesn’t cut it.
Mung,
Then we are agreed, that the ideology of skepticism, so championed here at TA/SZ, is not ‘your’ cult. Right?
Thanks. I really hate when he does that.
Right.
What I hate even more is that he actually manages to fool some people with this tactic.
Is God a brain in a vat?
keiths links to his alleged response:
His “response” is just a copy and paste of his original argument.
If it takes me being a “doofus” for noticing and pointing it out I guess I can live with that. DoofusMung.
Mung,
I told you that I had already covered the issue you raised (about the meaning of ‘omniscience’) earlier in the thread. I pointed you to a comment that addressed that issue. If you can’t figure it out, it’s in these words: “Defining him as omniscient doesn’t help. Like everyone else, he can only try to determine, from the inside, whether his cognitive apparatus is reliable. He can never be absolutely sure that he isn’t being fooled, or fooling himself.”
And if you had simply continued reading you would have found the spot where I addressed walto regarding that same issue:
The problem is your lack of reading comprehension, or perhaps your lazy refusal to read in the first place.
Indeed.
Yes, as I said, that’s just you repeating what you said in the OP and not providing any answer at all to my rebuttal.
From the keiths OP (again):
So you are repeating the exact same claim and pretending like I haven’t offered a rebuttal.
And if you had kept reading you would have found my rebuttals took place after the spot where you “answered” walto. I am still awaiting an answer to my arguments.
keiths who defends his positions.
Hypothesis 1.) You were too lazy to read what I wrote.
Hypothesis 2.) You did read what I wrote and given that you have no lack in your own reading comprehension you just took the cowards way out.
Here’s the link to the post you quoted:
where keiths left off
Now start from there and read forward, looking for posts by walto, or even better, posts by Mung. Time to stop pretending like you answered posts that you never did answer. Time to “man up” keiths.
Mung,
If you think that any of your points remain unaddressed by my earlier comments, then post them here.
Said the drive by poster who won’t say why they support ID.
I don’t “think” my posts exist, I know they do. I won’t ask you to post your responses, because they don’t exist.
Go to the post where you claimed to have offered your response and then read forward from there.
DoofusMung
Mung,
Be brave and post an argument, if you have one.
Haha. Subjectively funny keiths.
I counted at least six relevant posts in this thread which appeared after your alleged rebuttal. And that’s counting the posts I made, not those made by walto.
You’re as capable of tracking them down as I was.
Intellectually honest keiths might say something like the following:
You know, Mung, you’re right. I started from that post I made that I claimed had answered your objections to my argument and read forward from there and found a number of posts you made in which you clearly, though mistakenly, thought you had offered a rebuttal to my claims. And you’re also correct that I failed to respond to all of them, but that’s simply because I had already anticipated all possible objections in my OP and dismissed them there.
Be brave keiths. Post a rebuttal, if you have one.
Mung,
If you thought you had a strong argument, you’d post it.
That’s a joke. Do you read what you write? Remind me why you support ID?
The argument has been posted, right here in this thread. Only it came AFTER the post you claimed responded to my argument. If you had a rebuttal, you’d post it.
DoofusMung
Mung: Intellectually honest keiths
Yes, I know.