Are atheists afraid of God?

[Paul of Tarsus]

In response to Stephen Hawking's quip, "Religion is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark," apologist John Lennox said, "And atheism is a fairy story for those afraid of the light."

Do atheists fear that light aka God? I would answer no assuming I knew atheists to be completely sensible and rational in their rejection of theism, but they very often aren't sensible and rational in their unbelief. In this forum, for example, an atheist said he lost his belief in God when he realized that there are different religions. When I tried to explain to him that those conflicting faiths can be explained as some of them getting a real God wrong, well, it did me no good! It's simply illogical to conclude that God doesn't exist because some people disagree about him. His atheism is obviously based on faulty logic. What's odd about these cases involving atheists using poor reasoning to reject God is that those atheists seem quite reasonable otherwise. My guess is that they fear God and wish that he doesn't exist. Atheism is for them a sanctuary from theism and a hope that reality harbors no scary God.

[brunumb]

So atheists can believe in God in much the same way that Christians can doubt that God exists.

The correct analogy would be "So atheists can believe in God in much the same way that Christians can believe that God does not exist".

I do not believe in any gods although I do not absolutely preclude the possibility of such a being existing. On the other hand I have no hesitation in dismissing the Christian God based on the complete absurdity of the Bible.

[brunumb]

But Weinberg also made clear that his dislike for God is "silly." So he's avowing that he's not thinking rationally. It seems strange to me for him to describe his negative feelings toward God that way.

Not really. If someone feels any level of dislike or even hatred towards a fictional character like Voldemort, that is just an expression of how humans react to certain distasteful attributes in people. It may seem silly to feel that way towards a character that is not even real, but it is just our natural reaction to such things. I think Weinberg is just acknowledging that fact.

[Dimmesdale]

I don't buy that just any deity can be potentially real. A deity generally includes worshippers. Otherwise, what is the point of being a deity? One implies the other, in my view. A totally unknown deity, is no deity worth any salt.

Worship has to be one of the most useless and ridiculous activities invented by humans. Early people no doubt did it out of fear of vengeful deities or to appeal to the gods for favours. That seems to be the case even today. Any deity that actually requires worship isn't worthy of it anyway.

As for the prevailing gods that are in favour today, that is all about what humans have managed to achieve. They are a testament to the insidious ways that religions propagate themselves in society. No gods have demonstrated any of their alleged attributes let alone their existence. Everything is done through alleged human intermediaries and the gods themselves are not even necessary.

In my view, if you are a powerful, beneficent deity, you will naturally want to be in relationship with others - whether they are your subjects or companions or anyone else. And worship in such a context makes sense -- real worship, not mere lip service, but an actual exhibition of love and praise. If you and Benchwarmer are trying to sell me on this idea that a deity (or deities, however the case may be) created the world , and then had no part with it (or even if they didn't create it - just stand aloof) -- then that speaks only to the callous indifference of said deity(s). That sort of selfish god I wouldn't want to praise. But, a true God, a God worth his salt, demands praise because of Who He is -- a being of love, honor, etc. In that sense, that God would naturally want to make himself known.

The fact that other claimants to deity haven't been a fraction as successful as the Bible or Quran god, say, shows that they are either powerless to make themselves known (and thus they aren't God in the classical sense - omnipotent), or simply do not care about human beings (thus not all-loving, etc). For either of those reasons, I don't see any reason to give my worship to them -- because they are not a truly Universal Being intimately related with His Creation -- but rather human all too human frauds. And for that reason I don't think they exist. The Bible god has a better chance of existing than they do. The Bible god indicates a truly Universal Being at least. Unlike snarky "gods" who are simply erroneous humans writ large.

For that reason I think the Abrahamic gods are miles above mere local gods in terms of the "chance" that they exist.

[Purple Knight]

In my view, if you are a powerful, beneficent deity, you will naturally want to be in relationship with others - whether they are your subjects or companions or anyone else. And worship in such a context makes sense -- real worship, not mere lip service, but an actual exhibition of love and praise.

I have to take your side here because one could say the same as they about petting a cat. Worthless, right? So primitive, too; it's only lesser species that need to reinforce their bonds like this. What a waste of time.

Actually, it turns out... it has benefits.

https://www.goodnet.org/articles/7-scie ... -cat-owner

[brunumb]

In my view, if you are a powerful, beneficent deity, you will naturally want to be in relationship with others - whether they are your subjects or companions or anyone else.

I don't see why that follows. You are projecting human needs onto a being that is as far removed from being human as is possible. If that deity does want a relationship then doing it from a distance, or hiding, or relying on the imaginations of its subjects is far from having a genuine relationship. You'd think such a being would know how to engage in a true relationship with others.

[brunumb]

But, a true God, a God worth his salt, demands praise because of Who He is -- a being of love, honor, etc. In that sense, that God would naturally want to make himself known.

No gods, Yahweh included, have ever demonstrated such qualities. Based on the Bible, Yahweh is not a being of love or honour, but a capricious and mercenary tribal warlord, just as his creators conceived him. If he actually wants to make himself known he sure has a pathetic way of showing it. This deity is not worthy of respect let alone worship.

[brunumb]

The fact that other claimants to deity haven't been a fraction as successful as the Bible or Quran god, say, shows that they are either powerless to make themselves known (and thus they aren't God in the classical sense - omnipotent), or simply do not care about human beings (thus not all-loving, etc).

You are giving credit where none is due. Yahweh hasn't made himself known. The machinations of human beings have created that illusion. A genuine omnipotent all-loving deity would just have to be able to do a way better Job than Yahweh has done. At least it wouldn't have to rely on the endless loopholes and excuses generated by people to account for what are obviously one-sided relationships.

[brunumb]

I have to take your side here because one could say the same as they about petting a cat. Worthless, right? So primitive, too; it's only lesser species that need to reinforce their bonds like this. What a waste of time.

Your cat is real and tangible. There is genuine give and take. It is not worthless. Worshiping an invisible being whose attributes have never been demonstrated might give some people comfort, rather like a security blanket, but ultimately that practice really is mostly a waste of time. What does a deity want with people chanting and waving their arms in the air anyway? I suppose it numbs the mind and loosens the purse strings as the collection plate makes its rounds, but no gods are really involved.

[blackstart]

Firstly I am simply speaking for myself, and not other atheists(who are well able to speak for themselves), Of course it is quite possible that someone may feel fear when considering the idea of God for a variety of reasons. (e.g. they may link the idea of God to a harsh Christian upbringing which they have left behind but which still leaves its emotional scars upon them). So, you see, your idea that I think that the two are mutually exclusive is a false presumption on your part.

Where did you get the idea that I conclude that I 'cannot' fear God from? It certainly wasn't from me as I simply stated that I 'don't' fear God, which is not the same thing at all. In my case I suggested two reasons a) non belief in said God b) the lack of significance of said God to me(a point which you completely ignored by the way in your reply). In my case I hold no fear of God(in fact, any gods) and can only put it down to those two reasons. I don't much like the portayal of God in the Bible(especially, but not exclusively, in the OT) but I put that down to human beings, so dislike of this God's potrayal doesn't turn into fear at all.

Back on post 47 you stated:

...I find it hard to understand why I am supposed to be afraid of a God which a) I have no belief in, and b) plays no significant part in my life(apart from cultural influences, that is). I can only state that I don't have any feelings of fear at all as regards God. I can't see why I should.

That sure looks to me like you're saying you can't fear God. Are you sure you're not going back on what you said now that I've demonstrated that it's wrong?

I see no reason to go back on anything I've said. Hopefully to elucidate:
Of course it is possible that I am able to fear God therefore I would never use your words "Since you don't believe in God, then you conclude you cannot fear God". I even gave an example of someone who might well fear God whilst not believing in Him.

However the fact is I don't fear God. That might change, who knows, but all I can safely say is that I have never so far felt afraid of God. I put this down in my case to two main factors (a and b above) to which I give equal weight. I am always open to other suggestions however which I would critically evaluate.

Incidentally, when I was young I was afraid of a monster living under my bed whilst knowing full well that there wasn't one there.

[Purple Knight]

I have to take your side here because one could say the same as they about petting a cat. Worthless, right? So primitive, too; it's only lesser species that need to reinforce their bonds like this. What a waste of time.

Your cat is real and tangible. There is genuine give and take. It is not worthless. Worshiping an invisible being whose attributes have never been demonstrated might give some people comfort, rather like a security blanket, but ultimately that practice really is mostly a waste of time. What does a deity want with people chanting and waving their arms in the air anyway? I suppose it numbs the mind and loosens the purse strings as the collection plate makes its rounds, but no gods are really involved.

Yes but if I only thought my cat was real, arguably it would have the same positive effects. At least on me. Probably not on the cat. Probably.

Why does a deity want worship and ritual? Well, it's not about the deity really. It's about the people. Clearly they get a similar benefit as selection has always favoured the religious.