"Do atheists hate the God...?"

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
shavixmir, as a young boy I not only believed in the "tooth fairy" but also received small denomination coins under my pillow in the morning in place of my small teeth which were missing. My question for you: Is "God" one entity or a trinity of spirit beings with shared divine attributes?

And that is what a false dichotomy is.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
And that is what a false dichotomy is.

Ok.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
"Do atheists hate the God they don't believe in?" (by Matt Slick)

"People behave according to what they believe not what they don't believe. When an atheist says that God doesn't exist or denies Him or works hard to disprove His existence, he is behaving in a manner that is consistent with what he believes. Likewise, when an atheist speaks against God by accusing Him of immorality, then he is displaying his disdain for God. Christians often encounter such displays of contempt for God when atheists cite God-ordered Old Testament events that atheists believe are morally wrong. When they do this, they are demonstrating their scorn for God by accusing Him of doing what is wrong and, therefore, being wrong. Disdain, contempt, and scorn are all synonymous with hate.

Of course, atheists will say that they can't hate what they don't believe in. But if that is the case and they actually deny that God exists (either by positive denial or passive lack-of-belief), then they are expressing denial of the Christian concept of God by not properly affirming Him. Now, if the Christian concept of God is true and God actually exists, then it would be necessarily true that the atheists are expressing their disdain/hatred for the true and living God, especially when they accuse Him of wrong doing. Either way, those atheists who work against God's existence and also accuse Him of evil are doing so based on what they believe, namely, that God does not exist and the God of Scripture is morally wrong. Again, people behave according to what they believe, not what they don't believe.

What I think is interesting is that atheists have two problems--among many. First, they cannot establish that God does not exist. Yes, I know about the problem of disproving a universal negative and demonstrating that God doesn't exist anywhere, anytime. They can't. This is why they retreat into the "lack of belief in God" position. It's safer intellectual footing for them to stand on because it is less assailable. Of course, the "I lack belief in God" position has its weaknesses, too. But I digress. Atheists cannot demonstrate that God does not exist, so they often say there is no evidence for God's existence or that the evidence presented is not sufficient. However, evidence is a subjective concept since what may be evidence for you may not be evidence for me (see What is evidence?). Plus, evidence has validity based on a person's assumptions. Therefore, it is the assumptions that need to be examined.

Second, when atheists accuse God of being immoral and express their disdain for Him, they are making moral judgments. But, they have no objective moral standard by which they can make such judgments. They can assert that it is their opinion that God is wrong, but their opinion doesn't make Him wrong. They can say that society judges God to be wrong, but what makes the society correct? There are many kinds of problems that arise when atheists assert that the God of Scripture is somehow morally wrong for doing something. Then when confronted with their inconsistencies, they continue to deny Him and accuse Him of wrongdoing. Why, if He doesn't exist to them? It seems more plausible to say they hate God, at least in a mild sense, and their disdain is manifested in their actions.

Nevertheless, to reiterate, people behave according to what they believe, not what they don't believe. Second, whenever an atheist accuses God of immorality, he is passing a condemning judgment upon God and displaying his moral contempt for Him. Therefore, in his contempt, he is revealing his hatred for the God he does not believe in." https://carm.org/do-atheists-hate-the-god-they-dont-believe-in
_________________________

Question: What do you believe?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
[b]"Do atheists hate the God they don't believe in?" (by Matt Slick)

[i]"People behave according to what they believe not what they don't believe. When an atheist says that God doesn't exist or denies Him or works hard to disprove His existence, he is behaving in a manner that is consistent with what ...[text shortened]... the-god-they-dont-believe-in
_________________________

Question: What do you believe?[/b]

3 threads in a row now where you have simply copy and pasted your opening post.

Why is this necessary?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by twhitehead
"I care about other people and wish them to know the truth."

"Is there anything do you don't understand about the above or want further clarification on?"
_____________________

Only one: What is "the truth." you want other people to know?

Note: In my view, if one is taught, then both evolution and creationism should
be taught in [public] schools; private schools set their own curriculums.

Note: In my view, if one is taught, then both evolution and creationism should
be taught in [public] schools; private schools set their own curriculums.

I was browsing back to the start of this thread to understand why the original post has been reproduced on page 15 after a lengthy exchange. Finding this comment on page two amused me enough to check some sources, because of course what people keep neglecting to mention is that the classic expression of the Intelligent Design theory was by Wiliam Paley, Darwin occupied the same room at university as Paley had many years earlier and he was in awe of Paley for most of his life. Far from ignoring Intelligent Design, Darwin took it very seriously and responded in detail to its claims, and that was for a simple reason. Darwin was reluctant to set out his own theory because he was unhappy to find his evidence so much at odds with what he would have preferred to believe. Even so, in the end he felt fully obliged to present his findings and they have stood the test of time.

I have no objection whatever to any science teacher providing an account of the way Paley presented the arguments for Intelligent Design and Darwin, after painstaking research and consideration of the issues in very great detail, refuted Paley and offered a more useful and effective explanation for apparent design. That is exactly how Science and rational philosophy must proceed: offering a theory, testing it, destroying it, offering a better one. As part of that rational process, one is obliged to point out that Paley's theory was interesting, convinced many people, was investigated and failed the test.

I suspect that Creationists do not want that to be taught. They prefer to lie. But it is not necessary for every Christian or every person of any faith whatever to pin their religious credibility on the back of a failed theory about the natural world. Plenty of intelligent practising Christians, Muslims and Jews are content to review their belief systems in a way that accomodates Darwin.

Science teaching has nothing to fear from an honest account of intelligent design, the theory that Darwin tested and disproved. Indeed, much of the language in The Origin of Species is derived from Paley. It is part of the story and should not be ignored out of fear of the American Taliban fundamentalist Christian extremists.

Originally posted by finnegan
[b]Note: In my view, if one is taught, then both evolution and creationism should
be taught in [public] schools; private schools set their own curriculums.

I was browsing back to the start of this thread to understand why the original post has been reproduced on page 15 after a lengthy exchange. Finding this comment on page two amused me enough to ...[text shortened]... d should not be ignored out of fear of the American Taliban fundamentalist Christian extremists.[/b]

Very well put, finnegan.
There's not a one of us that prefers change to static life.
When it really comes down to it, where the rubber meets the road, we all just want to keep things as they are, hoping they shall ever be.
In essence, we are comforted by scabs.

And yet a scab demands a tear, demands a separation, demands a healing.
We resist a tear, fight with all our might against separation, and eventually hold fast to scabs, each and everyone of us.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Although the character of god described by some
Christians can be hated the same as any fictional character.

The character of God as represented in the OT and the NT can be morally evaluated, without hate entering into it, whether or not such a God really exists.

Originally posted by moonbus
The character of God as represented in the OT and the NT can be morally evaluated, without hate entering into it, whether or not such a God really exists.

Only so long as it is permissable to entertain ethical and moral concepts and standards that are independent of the prooposed God and to hold "God" to account with reference to them. As Job makes clear, monotheists do not in fact accept that this is permissable and define ethics and morality in a circular manner, to the effect that what is good is what God decides today is good and that God's infinite powers dictate that He is not bound of necessity by morality, reason or any other over-riding principle. Sadly, this produces a somewhat arbitrary and unworkable approach to morality and ethics, which is why, for example, many Christians argue that humans require a morality outside of religion ("A Godless Morality" ) ; the idea is a morality that would have the endorsement of people of all faiths and none, permitting a fair and just society, but that, politically as well as theologically, is unacceptable to the many people with religious convictions, who seek only the destruction of their rivals and their total domination by the preferred religion. This is evidenced by the disastrous and divisive contribution of fundamentalism to current political live, not least in the USA where the American Taliban is in full throated ascendant.

Originally posted by moonbus
The character of God as represented in the OT and the NT can be morally evaluated, without hate entering into it, whether or not such a God really exists.

One can hate characteristics.
One can hate ideologies, philosophies.

Do you not hate the character of OT god sanctioning genocide?