Why are Christians angry at Atheists?

[Zzyzx]

.
Atheists (self-identified) compose about 1.5% of the US population, Agnostics account for another 2.5% (and a total of "unaffiliated" 16%).

A great deal of hostility and anger, if not outright hatred, is directed by Christians toward Atheists in particular.

Why?

[YahDough]

They don't believe in God to mock him. What they mock is the willingness of people to believe what they were told with zero evidence that it's accurate.

That's what I would call not paying attention. or maybe I should have said not comprehending.

Rom:1:20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

This is why I brought up the "Why the Bible?" concept. Ok, sure, the things around us are evidence of a creator. I admit it, God exists. But now how do I know that your definition of God is better than MY definition of God? MY God is a God who created everything through, as we understand, natural processes and desires everyone to choose to do good without any form of threat or benefit such that he never reveals himself. Thus supernatural events do not occur lest he be known. The Bible then is contrary to who and what God is and Satan is the one who creates religions in order to cause people to believe in God's existence in order to trick us into bribed behavior, evil behavior, or threatened behavior. Any of the 3 prevent us from CHOOSING Good so they are all equally viable choices for Satan. Now, the evidence of God is clear, yes? So why is YOUR God better than mine?

I think you have an interesting concept of GOD the Father, the Source. But my God is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Father's provision for, and sustainer of, life. As a matter of fact Christ Jesus IS the life within the Father.

Jn:14:6: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

[ElCodeMonkey]

They don't believe in God to mock him. What they mock is the willingness of people to believe what they were told with zero evidence that it's accurate.

That's what I would call not paying attention. or maybe I should have said not comprehending.

Rom:1:20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

This is why I brought up the "Why the Bible?" concept. Ok, sure, the things around us are evidence of a creator. I admit it, God exists. But now how do I know that your definition of God is better than MY definition of God? MY God is a God who created everything through, as we understand, natural processes and desires everyone to choose to do good without any form of threat or benefit such that he never reveals himself. Thus supernatural events do not occur lest he be known. The Bible then is contrary to who and what God is and Satan is the one who creates religions in order to cause people to believe in God's existence in order to trick us into bribed behavior, evil behavior, or threatened behavior. Any of the 3 prevent us from CHOOSING Good so they are all equally viable choices for Satan. Now, the evidence of God is clear, yes? So why is YOUR God better than mine?

I think you have an interesting concept of GOD the Father, the Source. But my God is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Father's provision for, and sustainer of, life. As a matter of fact Christ Jesus IS the life within the Father.

Jn:14:6: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Why did you completely ignore the question? Kinda begs the question who really isn't "paying attention" . I conceded God is obvious through existence. So why is your God better than mine?

[YahDough]

They don't believe in God to mock him. What they mock is the willingness of people to believe what they were told with zero evidence that it's accurate.

That's what I would call not paying attention. or maybe I should have said not comprehending.

Rom:1:20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

This is why I brought up the "Why the Bible?" concept. Ok, sure, the things around us are evidence of a creator. I admit it, God exists. But now how do I know that your definition of God is better than MY definition of God? MY God is a God who created everything through, as we understand, natural processes and desires everyone to choose to do good without any form of threat or benefit such that he never reveals himself. Thus supernatural events do not occur lest he be known. The Bible then is contrary to who and what God is and Satan is the one who creates religions in order to cause people to believe in God's existence in order to trick us into bribed behavior, evil behavior, or threatened behavior. Any of the 3 prevent us from CHOOSING Good so they are all equally viable choices for Satan. Now, the evidence of God is clear, yes? So why is YOUR God better than mine?

I think you have an interesting concept of GOD the Father, the Source. But my God is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Father's provision for, and sustainer of, life. As a matter of fact Christ Jesus IS the life within the Father.

Jn:14:6: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Why did you completely ignore the question? Kinda begs the question who really isn't "paying attention" . I conceded God is obvious through existence. So why is your God better than mine?

My God is the Creator and sustainer of life. He is the Way to everlasting life. He is the Truth, personified. He IS Life.

I said most of that already. You got tokens for not paying attention.

[Realworldjack]

.
Atheists (self-identified) compose about 1.5% of the US population, Agnostics account for another 2.5% (and a total of "unaffiliated" 16%).

A great deal of hostility and anger, if not outright hatred, is directed by Christians toward Atheists in particular.

Why?

Sorry I am late to the party. I have read some of the thread but not all. First, it is my hope that you do not mean, all Christians direct hatred toward Atheist. I have no hatred, or anger at all toward Atheist. In fact my anger is more toward fellow Christians! Christians, do far more damage to the cause of Christ, than do Atheist!

[ElCodeMonkey]

My God is the Creator and sustainer of life. He is the Way to everlasting life. He is the Truth, personified. He IS Life.

I said most of that already. You got tokens for not paying attention.

Oh I see, you simply misunderstood the question and that was indeed your answer. It was nowhere near what I was actually asking for so I didn't recognize it as an actual answer. Clearly my fault for not being clear enough in what I'm looking for.

At the beginning of our conversation I mentioned that no one can explain why one should believe the Bible over any other religion. So my question wasn't merely, "Why is your God awesomer?" My question is why anyone should put more merit in your belief regarding God over the belief in my God. After all, my God is also "the Creator and Sustainer of Life." He is certainly "the Way to everlasting life." He is "the Truth personified" and indeed "He is Life." So your God certainly isn't any better in that regard. I hope that makes things more clear. In short, why does your God have more merit for belief than my God?

[Bust Nak]

... what he had to say about atheists didn't come close to what all of the atheists had to say about Christians.

I don't know. Disregarding what is and isn't actually said in this thread. I always thought that it's far more insulting to call someone "evil" than "stupid ;" far more insulting to call someone "dishonest" than "delusional;" to tell someone to "burn in hell" than to tell them to "go back to school;" to call someone "baby killer" than accuse one of "following bronze age goat herders."

In short, I am saying in general Christians insults atheists' integrity, atheists insults Christians' intellect*. The former seem worse than the latter, regardless of actual terms used.

*With the notiable exceptions of accusation of homophobia.

... I just figure that either there is a God or there's not a God. Either there is an afterlife or there isn't an afterlife. It doesn't really matter what God may be or what afterlife may await us: I'm the only one who is going to be able to say "I told you so."

So when ever and atheist starts to accuse me of being racist, or hateful, or unreasonable, or delusional, or any of the other myriad of things that atheists like to call me, I just think about that, and smile. It's heads I win, and tails I don't lose.

She used Pascal's wager! Get her!

It's heads you lose, tails you don't lose, only if the coin lands on the side would you win.

[dianaiad]

... what he had to say about atheists didn't come close to what all of the atheists had to say about Christians.

I don't know. Disregarding what is and isn't actually said in this thread. I always thought that it's far more insulting to call someone "evil" than "stupid ;" far more insulting to call someone "dishonest" than "delusional;" to tell someone to "burn in hell" than to tell them to "go back to school;" to call someone "baby killer" than accuse one of "following bronze age goat herders."

In short, I am saying in general Christians insults atheists' integrity, atheists insults Christians' intellect*. The former seem worse than the latter, regardless of actual terms used.

*With the notiable exceptions of accusation of homophobia.

... I just figure that either there is a God or there's not a God. Either there is an afterlife or there isn't an afterlife. It doesn't really matter what God may be or what afterlife may await us: I'm the only one who is going to be able to say "I told you so."

So when ever and atheist starts to accuse me of being racist, or hateful, or unreasonable, or delusional, or any of the other myriad of things that atheists like to call me, I just think about that, and smile. It's heads I win, and tails I don't lose.

She used Pascal's wager! Get her!

It's heads you lose, tails you don't lose, only if the coin lands on the side would you win.

Ah, no, actually, I didn't use Pascal's Wager. It only looked that way on the surface.

Here is Pascal's Wager:


1 "God is, or He is not"
2 A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3 According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4 You must wager. (It's not optional.)
5 Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6 Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. (from Wikipedia used it because it's as good as anybody else's list)

Pascal used it in the context of Christian thought, where it was more a choice between possible heaven...and the opposite was hell/non-existence. That is the basis of most of the objections to the Wager; different beliefs about God have different outcomes for both the believer and the non-believer. My own, for instance, doesn't automatically send non-believers to hell.

So the essence of Pascal's Wager is; since you have to bet one way or the other anyway, best to bet that God (the Christian one) exists, because if you lose, you don't lose much, but if you win, you win all.

Here's the problem with your judgment regarding my use of it. First, I didn't use it in the context of Christian thought; the pertinent quote (very carefully included, btw, as Pascal was in my mind at the time) "It doesn't really matter what God may be or what afterlife may await us" removes that aspect of it. Then there is the issue of reward or punishment: I didn't mention any. Indeed, I simply acknowledged the beliefs of atheists as opposed to those who believe in some sort of afterlife. Atheists don't think (most of 'em, anyway...never mind those pesky Buddhists) that there is one. Theists, in the man (never mind those pesky Jews, who don't really think about it that much and don't worry about it...at least, not according to any Jewish website I've looked at) do.

Pascal said that since God is a binary set...either He exists or He doesn't, it's best to wager that He does and live one's life as if He did. I made no mention of what you should do, or what rewards await; that doesn't matter. Only this; if you are correct, and there is no afterlife, then of course your consciousness will cease when your bodily functions do; you won't ever know whether there is an afterlife or not. You won't know anything. Neither will I, if you are correct. Neither one of us will, and neither one of us will be able to say anything to the other; I won't be able to say 'oops, you were right,' will I? I mean, if I COULD do that, then I'd be lying to say so, woudn't I?

On the other hand, if there is a life after death, then it is self evident that your position that there is none is wrong. I could say 'I told you so," even if my own beliefs about what the afterlife is are completely incorrect. You would not be able to say anything but 'oops...' with any accuracy. No mention of risk, or reward, or wager, or how either one of us should live our lives.

So, while what I said might, at first glance, look a bit like Pascal's wager, it isn't. It's missing a few important aspects of that wager...like the betting part, the risk/loss ratio, the way one should live one's life, the sort of belief one should pay attention to...stuff like that. It doesn't deal at all with what we should do, but only what we now believe. It is a natural conclusion to the premises established:

Either there is an afterlife or there is not.
If there is one, people might be able to communicate with each other.
If there isn't one, of course, they won't be, since they won't exist.
Since this is so, the last word in any argument regarding the existence of an afterlife can only be had by the believer in it. "I told you so," since if there isn't one, there can't be a 'last word.'

........if both parties end up in hell after that last line, one goes 'up' and the other goes 'down,' (either one) that's completely irrelevant to the conversation.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 37 by dianaiad]
Is being able say "I told you so" about a generic afterlife really a win worth smiling about? In any case. I reserve the right to say "I told you so, Christianity is false," should we end up in some non-Christian afterlife.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 37 by dianaiad]
Is being able say "I told you so" about a generic afterlife really a win worth smiling about?

When I'm in the middle of a debate in which my "opponent" goes on and on about my delusional state, my lack of intelligence, my idiocy, my adherence to a belief that is proven to be wicked, evil, (insert all the usual adjectives here), yeah. Sometimes it's worth smiling about. Especially since, in my belief, my being able to say 'I told you so,' would be pretty much the only annoying thing that the atheist would find in the situation.

At least, it would be if said atheist had attempted to live his life well according to his own sincere moral code, that is.

In any case. I reserve the right to say "I told you so, Christianity is false," should we end up in some non-Christian afterlife.

Not a problem. Given a great deal of Orthodox, orthodox and Protestant Christian thought (such as literal biblical creationism, 'original sin,' and predestination, etc.,) you could say 'I told you so' all you want to, and I would simply say 'yep.'

But then, a great many Christians refuse to admit me into their company.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 39 by dianaiad]
Well you are a Christian by my standard. I'll join you in "I told you so" if you turn out to be right.