Disbelief or Hatred ?

Hagar

How many people have arrived at Atheism not though a reasoned disbelief in a supreme being but rather through a hatred of a god they feel has let them down, leaving them to their only recourse of refusal to believe in god any more?

MrJoeSoap

Hagar wrote: »

How many people have arrived at Atheism not though a reasoned disbelief in a supreme being but rather through a hatred of a god they feel has let them down, leaving them to their only recourse of refusal to believe in god any more?

A little from column A, a little from column B. I think the latter leads to a feeling of the former to be honest, but thats not to say that the disbelief in a god isn't rational at the same time.

Zombrex

Hagar wrote: »

How many people have arrived at Atheism not though a reasoned disbelief in a supreme being but rather through a hatred of a god they feel has let them down, leaving them to their only recourse of refusal to believe in god any more?

Groan ... :rolleyes:

If you hate God you obviously believe in him and therefore aren't an atheist. You can't hate something you don't believe exists.

Dave!

I'm an atheist because the priest touched me.

MrJoeSoap

Wicknight wrote: »

Groan ... :rolleyes:

If you hate God you obviously believe in him and therefore aren't an atheist. You can't hate something you don't believe exists.

But what if you grow up believing in God, realise you've been dealt a sh*t hand and denounce "him", before becoming an Atheist...

Beruthiel

Column A for me.
I was young enough when I stopped believing so nothing happened in my young life for me to hate.

Zombrex

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

But what if you grow up believing in God, realise you've been dealt a sh*t hand and denounce "him", before becoming an Atheist...

What if what?

You can't believe someone doesn't exist because you hate him. That makes no sense. To hate him you have to believe he exists.

You can hate him and then later realise, for another reason, he doesn't exist. But the two beliefs are not, by definition connected. You are an atheist because of the other reason, what ever reason lead you to conclude he doesn't exist, not because of your original hatred.

If someone said to me "I am an atheist because I hate and denounce God" I would explain that isn't what an atheist is.

robindch

Hagar wrote: »

How many people have arrived at Atheism not though a reasoned disbelief in a supreme being but rather through a hatred of a god they feel has let them down, leaving them to their only recourse of refusal to believe in god any more?

Not me -- at some point, I realised that religious stories are a load of nonsense (skilled nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless).

Arriving at atheism because of a hatred of god seems a weird way to go, since you'd have to accept the deity's existence before you could hate it.

Hagar

If you profess Atheism, ie the denial of the existence of god, what does it matter how you arrived at your belief if that belief is sincerely held?

Side issue: If we all denied god, just flat out refused to believe in him, would he exist?

Rev Hellfire

Hagar wrote: »

Side issue: If we all denied god, just flat out refused to believe in him, would he exist?

Would it matter ?

Dades

It's more of a case that the sh1t hand he has dealt so many other people is evidence of his non-existence.

OK-Cancel-Apply

The OP really serves to remind us that some people just don't get what it is to not believe that god exists. And I've heard many Christians before claim that atheists are just angry at god. You could use the same reasoning to conclude that people don't believe in Santa because he didn't bring enough presents.

Hagar

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

The OP really serves to remind us that some people just don't get what it is to not believe that god exists.

The OP does no such thing, thanks very much.

I just posted a topic that came up in conversation with some friends and wondered what the good folks here would make of the argument. I never claimed it was my belief or thought process. Please keep your comments non-personal.

robindch

Hagar wrote: »

If you profess Atheism, ie the denial of the existence of god, what does it matter how you arrived at your belief if that belief is sincerely held?

I don't "profess" atheism, any more than I "profess" my disbelief in the tooth fairy, or my kid "professes" a disbelief in the christian god(s), just the same as you probably did when you were a kid and before you presumably "became" a christian.

Justifying some intellectual position by way of anger is irrational and useless. Is it wise or reasonable to deny the existence of blood pressure because my old man had a stroke?

I arrived at a position of atheism by very simple, reasoned argument (and the dismissal of previously-held unreasonable arguments) and that tentative conclusion is therefore all the more credible because of it.

I think you're looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope.

pH

Hagar wrote: »

If you profess Atheism, ie the denial of the existence of god, what does it matter how you arrived at your belief if that belief is sincerely held?

Because as pointed out above it's very difficult to see how hatred of something can eventually get you to the opinion that it doesn't exist.

Say I hate racism, it's almost impossible that I'm going to conclude that racism doesn't exist! no matter how much I hate it, so why is God any different?

Rev Hellfire

robindch wrote: »

before you presumably "became" a christian.

Thor will smith you for that one.

As for the actual question I would imagine that a 'hatred' for god will not be the reason a person becomes an atheist but the reason a person rejects a given religion. But once the blinkers come off it becomes much easier to question and reject the simplistic ideals of a supreme being put forward by organised religions.

Zombrex

Hagar wrote: »

If you profess Atheism, ie the denial of the existence of god, what does it matter how you arrived at your belief if that belief is sincerely held?

Who said it did matter?

Hagar wrote: »

Side issue: If we all denied god, just flat out refused to believe in him, would he exist?

You see your terminology is possibly people, including myself, have their backs up with regard to your posts.

What do you mean "denial of the existence of God" or "refused to believe in him".

Being an atheist is not an act of denial or refusal. You make it sound like atheism is an act of silly rebellion against what we deep down know to be true, that deep down we believe in God but refuse to accept that belief, for what ever reason.

Now I'm saying that is what you meant, but possibly your choice of terminology could be clearer.

Hagar

You are quite correct, my terminology is imperfect and may be causing misunderstanding.

What do you mean "denial of the existence of God" or "refused to believe in him".

I can't find a better way to phrase it. Doesn't the word Atheism itself mean the negative of a belief in god? Isn't "Agnostic" literally without knowledge. Since both Atheism and Agnosticism seemingly can only be defined as a negative or lack of something else it's hardly fair to expect me to come up with something cleverer than denial or refusal.

I did not intend to imply that Atheism is of itself an act of rebellion I'm just wondering how many people came to Atheism via that route? ie the forceful rejection of a previously held belief. Even the reasoned rejection of a belief system imposed upon a person in childhood may have had a triggering event?
How many Atheists were always Atheists? Surely this implies some sort of rejection or denial. A lie can be denied or rejected just as easily as a truth.

Dades

Hagar wrote: »

A lie can be denied or rejected just as easily as a truth.

Good point. Though recently when people (say, Kelly1) talk about "rejection" of God, it is usually in the context that we believe, but choose to reject him. Hence the predictable knee-jerk reaction!

robindch

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Thor will smith you for that one.

Possibly, but I'm never quite sure how to refer to the acquisition of religious belief. Using "became" without the quotes indicates that you're buying into the false conceit that you can become one all-encompassing thing by believing one small thing. The longer and more accurate terms like "acquiring a belief" and so on detract from the point, hence the "become" appearing in quotes.

It's not a judgement of any kind -- rather a hopeless attempt to avoid seeming to deliver one.

Sangre

For me I like to think it was almost entirely the logical/rational route (although i feel swarmy saying it like that). Going through a Christian education I'd keep hearing things about Christianity and think 'that makes no sense at all!' or 'how can that possibly tie in with X' etc.,

For course that being said, even if god was proved to exist conclusively, he isn't a being I'd deem worthy of worship. Although I don't want to take this off topic.

Andy-Pandy

Nothing happened, just figured it out through logic.

Scofflaw

Beruthiel wrote: »

Column A for me.
I was young enough when I stopped believing so nothing happened in my young life for me to hate.

Ditto. I would hypothetically hate him, though, if he existed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

I could be described as an alatrist.

Doubly plagiarising,
Zillah

Dave!

Shouldn't it be:

Doubly plagiarisingly,
Zillah

?

Trying it out for myself...ingly,

Dave

OK-Cancel-Apply

Hagar wrote: »

The OP does no such thing, thanks very much.

I just posted a topic that came up in conversation with some friends and wondered what the good folks here would make of the argument. I never claimed it was my belief or thought process. Please keep your comments non-personal.

I was referring more to the post than the poster, but I never meant anything personal.

I have to say though that to ask if anyone arrived at atheism because of a hatred of god doesn't really make sense, given the definition of the word 'atheism'.

kelly1

Dades wrote: »

Good point. Though recently when people (say, Kelly1) talk about "rejection" of God, it is usually in the context that we believe, but choose to reject him. Hence the predictable knee-jerk reaction!

Not that again! I know you don't believe in God, that's abundantly clear!

Would it be fair to say that you refuse to *seek* God purely on the basis that you don't believe in Him i.e. that you see no evidence for His existence? So therefore you refuse to take a leap of faith and try praying? Is that a reasonable statement?

kelly1

kelly1 wrote: »

Not that again! I know you don't believe in God, that's abundantly clear!

Would it be fair to say that you refuse to *seek* God purely on the basis that you don't believe in Him i.e. that you see no evidence for His existence? So therefore you refuse to take a leap of faith and try praying? Is that a reasonable statement?

yes
that or tried it and it didnt work im sure

kelly1

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

Nothing happened, just figured it out through logic.

Sorry but your logic is seriously flawed. As we all know you can't disprove God's existence.

stakey

kelly1 wrote: »

Sorry but your logic is seriously flawed. As we all know you can't disprove God's existence.

If you want to talk logic then it's completely and utterly illogical to believe in a deity without a shred of evidence of that being existing. It is therefore logical to not believe in such a being.

Oh, for some light humour... http://www.satireandcomment.com/0208toast.html

kelly1

stakey wrote: »

If you want to talk logic then it's completely and utterly illogical to believe in a deity without a shred of evidence of that being existing. It is therefore logical to not believe in such a being.

Oh, for some light humour... http://www.satireandcomment.com/0208toast.html

You can't say there's no shred of evidence. Try reading any of the writings of the mystic saints and you'll see what I mean. They've had very real and profound experiences of God. But don't take my word for it. Read it for yourself. I'd be happy to offer suggestions.

kelly1

kelly1 wrote: »

You can't say there's no shred of evidence. Try reading any of the writings of the mystic saints and you'll see what I mean. They've had very real and profound experiences of God.

So have people of other religions...

Beruthiel

kelly1 wrote: »

You can't say there's no shred of evidence. Try reading any of the writings of the mystic saints and you'll see what I mean. They've had very real and profound experiences of God.

Nice stories. No logical proof of anything.

kelly1

bluewolf wrote: »

So have people of other religions...

True but in the same way that all religions can't be true, all private revelations can't be true either. I think there is an important difference between the revelations to Catholic saints and non-catholics - The Catholic saints don't meditate on the word of God with the aim of having a religious experience. I don't think the same can be said of Buddhish, Hinduism, Sufism etc. In the case of true contemplation, it is not produced by an effort on the part of the person who is Meditating. Rather it is an "infusion" of God's grace into the soul producing a profound understanding of the nature of God. I have read about many forms of meditation and when you read about the ecstasies of the saints, there's no comparison with other experiences. It's like going from a mini to a merc, there's no going back.

Beruthiel wrote: »

Nice stories. No logical proof of anything.

True, someone elses mystical experiences are no proof to other people. But the lives of the saints certainly boost my faith in a big way.

St. Faustina's Diary is without doubt one of the most profound books I've ever read. It really is a stunning insight into God's mercy for the most hardened sinner. See: http://our.homewithgod.com/divinemercy/

kelly1

kelly1 wrote: »

True but in the same way that all religions can't be true, all private revelations can't be true either. I think there is an important difference between the revelations to Catholic saints and non-catholics - The Catholic saints don't meditate on the word of God with the aim of having a religious experience. I don't think the same can be said of Buddhish, Hinduism, Sufism etc. In the case of true contemplation, it is not produced by an effort on the part of the person who is Meditating. Rather it is an "infusion" of God's grace into the soul producing a profound understanding of the nature of God. I have read about many forms of meditation and when you read about the ecstasies of the saints, there's no comparison with other experiences. It's like going from a mini to a merc, there's no going back.

Ah, there's plenty of buddhist stories about people not meditating who reached enlightenment
(not to mention it's default non-theistic )
It depends on what the aim is I supopse and how well one has... conditioned their mind.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Would it be fair to say that you refuse to *seek* God purely on the basis that you don't believe in Him i.e. that you see no evidence for His existence? So therefore you refuse to take a leap of faith and try praying? Is that a reasonable statement?

When I was younger I prayed to "God", when I was still open to the idea that such a creature might exist. Strangely nothing happened. Perhaps he knew that I would reject him later and decided not to bother with me .... or perhaps he doesn't exist ....

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

When I was younger I prayed to "God", when I was still open to the idea that such a creature might exist. Strangely nothing happened. Perhaps he knew that I would reject him later and decided not to bother with me .... or perhaps he doesn't exist ....

Maybe you prayed for the wrong thing? Maybe you prayed for something selfish or only when you needed something? Did you praise God and give Him thanks? Did you love God? Maybe, maybe not.

In any case do you think God owes you anything? If God never answered any of my prayers, I would still continue to pray. It would make things more difficult for me but I trust that God always does what's best for me. But I have had many prayers answered and in striking ways.

Dave!

The problem is, Wicknight, you were praying to the wrong god. Prayer is like email: if you get even one character wrong, your message ends up going to some randomer. Cupid was probably sitting there checking his prayers and sees the subject 'In need of salvation'. "Wtf? I can't do that sh*t, all I can do is make people fall in love! *click* Into the spam folder." It's requests@god.com, not good.com.

There's your problem Wicky Wiki.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

Would it be fair to say that you refuse to *seek* God purely on the basis that you don't believe in Him i.e. that you see no evidence for His existence?

I refuse to seek him in the same way I refuse to seek out Elvis in my shed.

I've 12 yrs of catholic school and all it entails behind me. I've prayed, made my first confession, communion, confirmation etc. I've even been to Medjugorje. If God wanted to communicate he had his chance. He didn't. I think I know why.

Dave!

Dades wrote: »

I refuse to seek him in the same way I refuse to seek out Elvis in my shed.

I've 12 yrs of catholic school and all it entails behind me. I've prayed, made my first confession, communion, confirmation etc. I've even been to Medjugorje. If God wanted to communicate he had his chance. He didn't. I think I know why.

Because you're an apostate?

stereoroid

kelly1 wrote: »

You can't say there's no shred of evidence. Try reading any of the writings of the mystic saints and you'll see what I mean. They've had very real and profound experiences of God. But don't take my word for it. Read it for yourself. I'd be happy to offer suggestions.

Here's a suggestion: learn the difference between evidence and testimony. Anything that people have said or written, now or in the past, is testimony. Words alone, with nothing to back them up independently, are not evidence of anything but the words alone.

How much do you know about the history of the Catholic Church? Your religion was cobbled together by committees (the Councils of Nicaea), who decided what bits of ancient myth to keep, which to discard, and how to keep their "flocks" (i.e,. sheep) in line, with tales of saints and miracles. It worked, obviously. :rolleyes:

Seriously, how do you expect such talk to go down here? You're making the same mistake as Muslims do: if only we would read some piece(s) of writing, we would be converted... O RLY? You all need to understand that words are just words: people write things, other people read them... and people will say or write anything that they care to. That includes all your "holy" scriptures, from all your religions, without exception: they are written to manipulate you, and shame on you for falling for it. Well, at least you're not a Scientologist, are you?

kelly1

Dades wrote: »

I refuse to seek him in the same way I refuse to seek out Elvis in my shed.

I get tired of people putting God in the same category as the tooth fairy, Santa and the FSM. Nobody accepts the existence of those but surely the existence of God is far more likely? It is to my mind anyway. I mean why would a universe - with such a diversity of life - come into existence via a random big bang. Aren't the chances of that happening just a likely as the existence of the FSM etc.

Dades wrote: »

I've 12 yrs of catholic school and all it entails behind me. I've prayed, made my first confession, communion, confirmation etc. I've even been to Medjugorje. If God wanted to communicate he had his chance. He didn't. I think I know why.

What were you expecting? A booming voice from Heaven? I'm talking about a real relationship with Jesus, not just rattling off perfunctory prayers.

BTW, I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith in Medjugorje. They're con-men/women if you ask me. Either that or victims of false/demonic visions.

kelly1

stereoroid wrote: »

Here's a suggestion: learn the difference between evidence and testimony. Anything that people have said or written, now or in the past, is testimony. Words alone, with nothing to back them up independently, are not evidence of anything but the words alone.

OK, thanks for that.

stereoroid wrote: »

How much do you know about the history of the Catholic Church? Your religion was cobbled together by committees (the Councils of Nicaea), who decided what bits of ancient myth to keep, which to discard, and how to keep their "flocks" (i.e,. sheep) in line, with tales of saints and miracles. It worked, obviously. :rolleyes:

What evidence do you have that the council believed myths? What I believe is that the Truth was revealed by Jesus to His apostles. The truths revlealed to the apostles were brought to the council along with the various heresies doing the rounds at the time and the council decided by their God-given authority what was true and what was false. But I don't expect you to believe this.

stereoroid wrote: »

Seriously, how do you expect such talk to go down here? You're making the same mistake as Muslims do: if only we would read some piece(s) of writing, we would be converted... O RLY? You all need to understand that words are just words: people write things, other people read them... and people will say or write anything that they care to. That includes all your "holy" scriptures, from all your religions, without exception: they are written to manipulate you, and shame on you for falling for it.

How do you actually know that God didn't reveal Himself first to the Jew and then through Jesus Christ? What kind of God would keep us in the dark?

stereoroid wrote: »

Well, at least you're not a Scientologist, are you?

No bloody way! I don't believe any old crap!

stakey

kelly1 wrote: »

In any case do you think God owes you anything? If God never answered any of my prayers, I would still continue to pray. It would make things more difficult for me but I trust that God always does what's best for me. But I have had many prayers answered and in striking ways.

kelly1 wrote: »

I get tired of people putting God in the same category as the tooth fairy, Santa and the FSM. Nobody accepts the existence of those but surely the existence of God is far more likely? It is to my mind anyway. I mean why would a universe - with such a diversity of life - come into existence via a random big bang. Aren't the chances of that happening just a likely as the existence of the FSM etc.

Okay okay, so you believe in an all powerful god, who created the universe and all it's marvels. A pretty awesome being this being then. A being who managed to create an ever changing universe of complex laws and regulations filled with trillions and trillions of stars and galaxies. Pretty impressive feat.

You also believe that this being, capable of creating such a thing as our universe (and perhaps it's conjoined universes (don't see that bit in the bible)) would bother listening to the woes and struggles of 6 billion hairless primates on the third rock from a pretty average star?

Do you see why some people would compare this to belief in Santa or the Tooth Fairy?

There is no physical evidence in the physical world that we live in for your god. The opinion written in texts hundreds of years old do not count as evidance. The feeling of 'his presence' is not evidence of his existance. Give me physical tangible proof of your god and i'll consider the scientific evidence.

And if you're going to question the origins of the big bang then by all means do a bit of analysis on your own beliefs, where did your god come from?

Dades

DaveMcG wrote: »

Because you're an apostate?

I may be now but I wasn't at the time!

kelly1 wrote: »

What were you expecting? A booming voice from Heaven? I'm talking about a real relationship with Jesus, not just rattling off perfunctory prayers.

I'm confused here. I used to believe in God, did everything a good catholic did. What exactly do you have to do to obtain a real relationship? Instead, rather than getting any kind of feedback the world continued to turn in exactly the matter as it would if there were no God. Gradually I drew my own conclusions based on how I see the world and what I've learned, and yet it's still my fault? Does God only 'speak' with adults?

kelly1 wrote: »

BTW, I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith in Medjugorje. They're con-men/women if you ask me. Either that or victims of false/demonic visions.

I would agree with the former.

kelly1

Dades wrote: »

I'm confused here. I used to believe in God, did everything a good catholic did. What exactly do you have to do to obtain a real relationship? Instead, rather than getting any kind of feedback the world continued to turn in exactly the matter as it would if there were no God. Gradually I drew my own conclusions based on how I see the world and what I've learned, and yet it's still my fault? Does God only 'speak' with adults?

I think it's fair to say that most "practicing" Catholics, not to mention lapsed Catholics, have a fairly loose relationship with God/Jesus. I don't mean to be judgmental but you only have to look at Mass attendances and the absence of people at the confession box.

As far as I'm concerned, God should be at the centre of everyone's life. God created us and He wants to fill us with every grace is we'd only open up to him. The path to a true relationship with Christ is shown in the bible and even more clearly in the writings of the saints. It's a path that means denying one's own will and abandoning old ways and old sins and changing to conform with God's will. It's about putting God's will before ours. But how many people are prepared to change and give up worldly pleasures and comforts in order to "live in the Spirit"? Very few.

Rev Hellfire

kelly1 wrote: »

It's about putting God's will before ours.

Its a rather vain and self-centred god that would require people to go down on bended knee for salvation and attention. Certainly not one worthy of our respect imho.

Dades

Noel, you've manage to say exactly nothing in those two paragraphs.

I told you about how I used to be a good catholic and you spout off about "denying one's own will and abandoning old ways and old sins and changing to conform with God's will" like the guy with the placards on Abbey Street.

You're shirking the point which was if God remains conspicuously silent even when he is believed in - why are people to blame when they conclude he's not there at all?

kelly1

Bloody hell! It's like we're speaking different languages. Anyway I must get back to work now.

Beruthiel

kelly1 wrote: »

No bloody way! I don't believe any old crap!

LOL
Brilliant.
kelly, you're priceless

Dades

I got Noel to curse!