Why do you hate God?

[Brian37]

<snipping the bullshit and snide personal attacks>

And my post in the introductions thread has been shown to be entirely accurate.  Guess I shouldn't have been so charitable.

Let me ask you a question, why are you so filled with hatred for those who don't share your beliefs?  I don't hate christians unless they personally attack me, in fact I get on well with some very devout christians in my own life.  They know I'm an atheist, I know they're catholic, but we can all recognise that everybody is a good person and we can all get on well with each other, and nobody is trying to impose their beliefs anybody else.

My late mother was a Catholic. I cant lie, being a former Catholic myself in saying that I long since ditched that sect along with any god belief. But I never hated her personally on the subject of religion. She was always my biggest supporter. But I cant lie and say I didn't hate the fact she clung to a sky hero.

---

Ok fine, but he still sucks, because I have friends who still don't know how to use chopsticks.

That's why FSM invented the spork

"Spork" is the bisexual transgender utensil the religious right hates.

[HappySkeptic]

Hi John,

Your original post was a bit hard to read (use more paragraphs), and had too many ideas to reply to properly.

However, let me tell you my take. I am currently an atheist Unitarian Universalist (UU).

I was brought up agnostic, and became a Christian in early adulthood (from an Evangelical start to a mainstream Anglican). I became an atheist about 10 years ago, simply by asking hard questions of my religion in discussion forums (back when Amazon had forums).

I could no longer, in good conscience recite either the Nicene or Apostle's creeds. I didn't believe a single line of them. I don't hate God or religion. I enjoyed my Christian church, the people, the attempt to improve ourselves and our relationships with others. I simply believed that it was built on myth and story, and not truth. I had to leave the church because I felt I was dishonoring their rites (and my own integrity) by pretending to be a Christian (though the minister says I am always welcome). I am actually happy I left, because I found a perfect fit as an atheist in a UU church.

My UU minister says that when she is asked if she believes in God, she simply says "define God".

God concepts usually fit into one or both of these categories:

* An idealized version of self (e.g. the holy spirit as the best part of you).
* A connection to something larger than yourself (e.g. the universe, a creator, or a metaphysical connection between living things).

I think both categories are healthy things to contemplate. What would a "perfect you" be like? What connections give meaning to your life? These are spiritual questions, and I pursue them in my UU church. However, they don't require any standard concept of "God", nor any standard myths or religious rites.

We are all free to find our own meaning in life that is consistent with science, psychology, and our life experience.

[Peebothuhlu]

Hello johndoe122931!

Holly wall of text, Batman!

So, I'll admit to not actually reading through your monblock dissertation.

My answer to; "Why do you (Reader) hate diety?"

Is simply "I don't hate something that seems to have no basis in reality."

 

Cheers.

Not at work.

[Anomalocaris]

Hates a strong word.  Christer god is one of my least favorites I suppose - but he can't help that, just the way he was written.

There is no he, only it.   It can’t help because it is an it, and not a he.

[Deesse23]

I dont believe the (christian) god exists. Ergo i dont hate it. I cant hate something that doe not exist. Do you hate Thor?

What i hate, its the image of their god that has been sold to the world by christianity. A god that is cruel and unjust, full of hate. He/it condones slavery, to him rape is a property crime, he condones incest and allegedly committed genocide(s). He/it is vain and vindictive. An all around monster.

If that entity would be proven to exist, then i would believe in it, but i would not worship it.

[johndoe122931]

Well, I hear that supposedly cat makes a good meal. Not sure myself I just love those darn cute little critters so much I could never bring myself to hurt them. I'm kinda a cat person lol. 
I have no problem with you drinking goat's blood. I know in some cultures pig blood is used pretty often in cooking. I personally do not partake, but hey to each their own.
Well, I'm sure the MLB won't mind too much if you download their content without express written permission. I promise I won't tell on you.
Wait, it's illegal to rip tags off mattresses!!!! Oh man I messed up bad. Please don't tell on me!
Not sure what fab 4 is or what double-A with double B in middle is or who Dan is, but I won't judge... Out loud at least lol jk.
Hey, you bunch of atheists are alright I like you guys and gals and nonbinary, and well whatever else you describe yourself as!

---

Thank you for sharing your story Mister Agenda. I have a question if I may. How does your family feel about you being an atheist? Do they know now and if so do you still have a relationship with them?

---

Not sure what FSM is. Can you please elaborate?

You are new here so I will forgive you.  But think of 1970s Disco Music, and take note of my avatar in each post and the foil method in algebra, outside first, inside second.  Look at my AVATAR, an "A" on both ends and two "B"s in the middle. 

You may be a theist here, but trust me, there is a lot of blasphemy and ridicule of my favorite band. I like to bring them out when I feel cornered.

"I will not be ignored Dan" is a line from "Fatal Attraction".

"FSM" = Flying Spaghetti Monster" which was started decades ago, someone wrote an entire spoof of the bible and replaced "God" with the Flying Spaghetti Monster". I wish it had been me, but I don't have the attention span to write something like that.

Oh yeah ok I see lol. Yes, I have heard of the flying food god before. I actually find it to be quite comical and love the energy people have put into it. It is very entertaining. I am also quite fond of Abba myself, as for Fatal Attraction, I have heard of it but have not watched it.

---

<snipping the bullshit and snide personal attacks>

And my post in the introductions thread has been shown to be entirely accurate.  Guess I shouldn't have been so charitable.

Let me ask you a question, why are you so filled with hatred for those who don't share your beliefs?  I don't hate christians unless they personally attack me, in fact I get on well with some very devout christians in my own life.  They know I'm an atheist, I know they're catholic, but we can all recognise that everybody is a good person and we can all get on well with each other, and nobody is trying to impose their beliefs anybody else.

Good evening Nomad,

So, you have on here that I wrote 
<snipping the bull@#$% and snide personal attacks>

I am not sure where you got that from, but I have never spoken like that to anybody in here at all nor do I speak like that to anybody in my personal life so please do not attribute such things to me. 

As for your question, I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that I am so filled with hatred for those who don't share my belief. I have shown nothing my kindness, courtesy, and respect to everybody on here and have in no way shown any hatred to anybody in any way. Also, I have not tried to impose my beliefs on anybody in this forum in any way, quite the contrary, I have avoided it even when asked personal questions, not because I am trying to dodge the questions, but mostly because I am trying to respect the rules of the forum.

If I may go on a bit, please forgive me for going a little off OP as I find it relevant to this post and I will end it here. Many years ago I was on a similar forum, not sure which, where I would come to debate atheists, shortly after that I created a Twitter account and posted mostly on atheistic accounts challenging their thoughts and ideas, but mostly starting arguments. I found it to be fun and it was all really tongue in cheek to me. I was contacted by a man named David Smalley who has a podcast called the Dogma Debate. I agreed to be a guest on his show and we went back and forth on the typical questions and ideas and he ended the podcast like all the others and it went well enough. Soon after he posted that podcast online I got swarmed with messages on Twitter from Atheists and Christians alike thanking me for being on the podcast. Most of the responses from Atheist were positive and telling me I did a good job and that I was mostly respectful and kind and they appreciated that. I would receive some messages from Athesist that were a bit critical, but nothing too bad. I then started to receive messages from what I guess would be called "militant-atheist" or anti-theist. Now that is when it got interesting. I received the vilest and hateful messages that one could receive saying horrible things such as I should kill myself or that my children should be taken from me and I should be locked in a cage and tortured for torturing my children with religion and that I am a racist and bigot and homophobe etc. 

Needless to say, I spent a lot of time refuting these claims and found myself falling deep into Twitter arguing with these mostly nameless and faceless individuals. Mostly nameless and faceless. What I say now I could be greatly mistaken and if so I do apologize, but one of those individuals who said such despicable things to me was you, Nomad. I knew I knew you from somewhere when I saw your name and picture then it dawned on me. You were the one that was sending me all these hate-filled messages on Twitter telling me things I would not repeat to my worst enemy. I reported you numerous times but nothing ever happened and because of you and a few other of your fellow atheist I deleted my Twitter account because I could for one no longer spend the time I was spending basically denying your horrible claims about me but also because I could not stand seeing those horrible things anymore. Now I could be wrong in that it wasn't you and if I am then I apologize, but as I see your face and name the more it comes back to me like a bad memory one tries to forget. 

Now with that being said it is now out in a public forum for all to see, I ask you this one time and one time only please leave me alone. If you want to have a positive interaction with me then I am all for that, but I will not just stand here and allow what you did to me on Twitter to happen here. Please I only ask if you have nothing positive to say to me and only want to continue to make antagonistic comments towards me please save it for somebody else because I will not partake in your excessive disparaging comments. I don't mind people being critical or having positive criticism towards me or my comments, but I will not be put down and deal with the same thing I had to deal with on Twitter all those years ago. Thank you and take care.

[johndoe122931]

Hello johndoe122931!

Holly wall of text, Batman!

So, I'll admit to not actually reading through your monblock dissertation.

My answer to; "Why do you (Reader) hate diety?"

Is simply "I don't hate something that seems to have no basis in reality."

 

Cheers.

Not at work.

Yeah, I know lol my bad. Thanks for the post!!!

---

Hi John,

Your original post was a bit hard to read (use more paragraphs), and had too many ideas to reply to properly.

However, let me tell you my take.  I am currently an atheist Unitarian Universalist (UU).  

I was brought up agnostic, and became a Christian in early adulthood (from an Evangelical start to a mainstream Anglican).  I became an atheist about 10 years ago, simply by asking hard questions of my religion in discussion forums (back when Amazon had forums).

I could no longer, in good conscience recite either the Nicene or Apostle's creeds.  I didn't believe a single line of them.  I don't hate God or religion.  I enjoyed my Christian church, the people, the attempt to improve ourselves and our relationships with others.  I simply believed that it was built on myth and story, and not truth.  I had to leave the church because I felt I was dishonoring their rites (and my own integrity) by pretending to be a Christian (though the minister says I am always welcome).  I am actually happy I left, because I found a perfect fit as an atheist in a UU church.

My UU minister says that when she is asked if she believes in God, she simply says "define God".

God concepts usually fit into one or both of these categories:

* An idealized version of self (e.g. the holy spirit as the best part of you).
* A connection to something larger than yourself (e.g. the universe, a creator, or a metaphysical connection between living things).

I think both categories are healthy things to contemplate.  What would a "perfect you" be like?  What connections give meaning to your life?  These are spiritual questions, and I pursue them in my UU church.  However, they don't require any standard concept of "God", nor any standard myths or religious rites.  

We are all free to find our own meaning in life that is consistent with science, psychology, and our life experience.

Thank you for sharing your story with us I appreciate it very much! Question if I may. You say you are an atheist and are a part of a UU church? Can you please elaborate more on that so that I understand what you mean by UU church?

[Belacqua]

This is not true. 

Paul interpreted the Old Testament as allegory. Jesus spoke in parables. Augustine wrote a whole book on non-literal Genesis.

There is absolutely NO evidence that there were the claimed 12 disciples at the actual alleged time the bible claims the Character Jesus existed. The first known book was written way after the alleged 32/33 years the bible claims. 

It makes much more sense to me, a person, or group of people, got tired of the old Hebrew ways and decided to create a splinter sect. Those individuals used the real time to sell fantastic stories, and after they died, the popularity of their fantastic adventures caught on, just like L Ron Hubbard was able to start Scientology. Just like the Rasta religion is a spin of mix of African/Jewish/Catholic motifs.

The 12 Disciples were pseudonyms, like ghost writers, except they were not contemporary witnesses. They were writers who simply took advantage of legend and mythology and made it popular after the fact. 

Much like in the industrial revolution, someone comes up with an idea, but someone else sees their idea, and beats them to the patent office. 

But in the case of the Jesus Character, they were not marketing a truth, just a legend, a myth. 

The first official bible was not compiled until 329 CE. And even then, by that time there were books left out.

Most  of what you say here is true, but none of it is relevant to what we were talking about. I don't know why you want to change the subject.

You've made two claims which are not true.

1) Non-literal interpretation of the Bible is a recent phenomenon. 

and 

2) The Bible is meant to be interpreted literally. 

I've offered counterarguments, namely that the Evangelists all describe Jesus as using non-literal language. So from the time of the writing of the gospels, non-literal language is accepted. Paul interprets the Old Testament non-literally. 

In addition, I can point to the Fathers of the Church, including Anselm, Origen, Augustine, Dionysius the Areopagite, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus, who all interpreted much of the Bible non-literally. They were a long time ago, so their non-literal use is not a recent phenomenon. 

Early on, Christians adopted the Jewish "Pardes" method of hermeneutics, which had been in use for a long time. In this system each statement in the Bible is read at four levels of interpretation, with the literal meaning being the lowest and least important. These commentators also use the word "literal" to mean "with the meaning intended by the original author." So if the original author meant a statement to be a metaphor (as for example is obvious throughout the Song of Solomon) then the literal meaning is metaphorical.

Modern historians (as opposed to TV Evangelists) tell us that much of the Bible is not to be interpreted literally. As an example I can point to the editors of the Oxford Annotated Bible, Revised Standard Version, published by Oxford University Press. They warn in several cases that a literal reading will go against the intentions of the authors, in particular in the case of the Apocalypse of John. Literal interpretation of this book is a modern idea of uneducated people. The editors working for Oxford are historians, not uneducated people from your local church.

So if you have anything other than your strong unsupported beliefs, I'd be interested to hear your evidence. Probably if you want to make truth claims about history it would be good to have a little bit of evidence.

[Brian37]

There is absolutely NO evidence that there were the claimed 12 disciples at the actual alleged time the bible claims the Character Jesus existed. The first known book was written way after the alleged 32/33 years the bible claims. 

It makes much more sense to me, a person, or group of people, got tired of the old Hebrew ways and decided to create a splinter sect. Those individuals used the real time to sell fantastic stories, and after they died, the popularity of their fantastic adventures caught on, just like L Ron Hubbard was able to start Scientology. Just like the Rasta religion is a spin of mix of African/Jewish/Catholic motifs.

The 12 Disciples were pseudonyms, like ghost writers, except they were not contemporary witnesses. They were writers who simply took advantage of legend and mythology and made it popular after the fact. 

Much like in the industrial revolution, someone comes up with an idea, but someone else sees their idea, and beats them to the patent office. 

But in the case of the Jesus Character, they were not marketing a truth, just a legend, a myth. 

The first official bible was not compiled until 329 CE. And even then, by that time there were books left out.

Most  of what you say here is true, but none of it is relevant to what we were talking about. I don't know why you want to change the subject.

You've made two claims which are not true.

1) Non-literal interpretation of the Bible is a recent phenomenon. 

and 

2) The Bible is meant to be interpreted literally. 

I've offered counterarguments, namely that the Evangelists all describe Jesus as using non-literal language. So from the time of the writing of the gospels, non-literal language is accepted. Paul interprets the Old Testament non-literally. 

In addition, I can point to the Fathers of the Church, including Anselm, Origen, Augustine, Dionysius the Areopagite, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus, who all interpreted much of the Bible non-literally. They were a long time ago, so their non-literal use is not a recent phenomenon. 

Early on, Christians adopted the Jewish "Pardes" method of hermeneutics, which had been in use for a long time. In this system each statement in the Bible is read at four levels of interpretation, with the literal meaning being the lowest and least important. These commentators also use the word "literal" to mean "with the meaning intended by the original author." So if the original author meant a statement to be a metaphor (as for example is obvious throughout the Song of Solomon) then the literal meaning is metaphorical.

Modern historians (as opposed to TV Evangelists) tell us that much of the Bible is not to be interpreted literally. As an example I can point to the editors of the Oxford Annotated Bible, Revised Standard Version, published by Oxford University Press. They warn in several cases that a literal reading will go against the intentions of the authors, in particular in the case of the Apocalypse of John. Literal interpretation of this book is a modern idea of uneducated people. The editors working for Oxford are historians, not uneducated people from your local church.

So if you have anything other than your strong unsupported beliefs, I'd be interested to hear your evidence. Probably if you want to make truth claims about history it would be good to have a little bit of evidence.

As long as there are evolution deniers, it is relevant. As long as there are people who want to use law to control the bodies of females, it is relevant. As long as humans are willing to kill in the name of their god, it is relevant.

And we are not talking about historians. Historians don't get political, right wing religious leaders DO. 

And read your own words "modern historians". 

BACK when the first books were written, the INTENT of the writers was to draw the reader in to gain more club members. That was the intent back then, and it is still the intent today.

---

And I DO know the difference between a objective historian and a theologian/holyperson/apologist. A historian is neutral and isn't trying to sell you anything. But a theologian/holy person/apologist IS trying to sell you something, does get political, and wants to suck you into the club.

[Belacqua]

As long as there are evolution deniers, it is relevant. As long as there are people who want to use law to control the bodies of females, it is relevant. As long as humans are willing to kill in the name of their god, it is relevant.

And we are not talking about historians. Historians don't get political, right wing religious leaders DO. 

And read your own words "modern historians". 

BACK when the first books were written, the INTENT of the writers was to draw the reader in to gain more club members. That was the intent back then, and it is still the intent today.

The two statements you made about literal interpretations are not true. 

But I understand that you feel strongly about this and don't worry too much about truth.