Angry at God? If so, you're not alone, says psychologist

they may become less angry if they decide that God was not actually responsible for the upsetting event

people who do not believe in God may still harbor anger

Overcoming anger at God, she says, may require some of the same steps needed to resolve other anger issues.

Hypothesis: Being angry with god is a form of psychological projection.

According to Exline's findings, Protestants, African Americans, and older people tend to report less anger at God; people who do not believe in God may still harbor anger; and anger toward God is most distressing when it is frequent, intense, or chronic.

The vocal atheist is often nearly incapable of a single statement which lacks some reference to god.

Infinity means that there is a 100% chance of any and everything.

As the atheists here are expressing such virulent anger against religion, I wonder whom it is that's really angry at "God?" Perhaps they might examine their own motivations?.

Assuming that, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The God of Abraham and Issac (Yahweh, Sky Father) is certainly possible

Naw, no technology can duplicate the god of the patriarchs, who was present before the universe was created (including any and all ancillary universes and dimensions)

Strange how people who profess that there is no god harbor more anger toward god.

The inconsistency of the atheist is also apparent in the chronic misuse of god in profane statements. The vocal atheist is often nearly incapable of a single statement which lacks some reference to god.

My God is the God of the Yawning Chasms. Only the brave lean over the edge and gaze into our profound echoing ignorance.

Don't be a coward. Go to the edge and look in. The Chasm is dark and infinite.

Existence is infinite. If there is a god, then God is infinite. Infinity means that there is a 100% chance of any and everything. Any infinity is a definition of god. Existence cannot be less than infinite. If it were less, then existence would have to be inside something else, or standing on a giant turtle. Then of course, it is turtles all the way down.
Anger is the result of character, and your character is your fate. It is OK to be angry at infinity. Infinity is capricious and indifferent if your existence is finite.

ubavontuba opined, As the atheists here are expressing such virulent anger against religion, I wonder whom it is that's really angry at "God?" Perhaps they might examine their own motivations?

Hmm...

Wouldn't it be wiser to prosecute your anger against the perpetrators of crime, rather than discriminate against whole segments of societies because some people in those segments happen to commit crime?

Would you want God to force you into obedience?

Because silence is acceptance. If members of the religion do not cast aspersions upon the body of governance that gives rise to such atrocity, then those members are as guilty.

People are not good. God is. Just because someone says they believe in God does not make them good. I just think it is unfair to judge God by our actions as people. We don't know near enough to judge a deity.

You attempt to make comparison to atheists, but you'll find we're some of the largest detractors of Nazism for instance. If you come across an atheist who cares not to cast such aspersion against other equally evil non-believers as the Holy Roman Church, then you've found yourself someone to brow beat with your above commentary.

You attempt to make comparison to atheists, but you'll find we're some of the largest detractors of Nazism for instance. If you come across an atheist who cares not to cast such aspersion against other equally evil non-believers as the Holy Roman Church, then you've found yourself someone to brow beat with your above commentary.

So therefore; as atheists do commit crime, and atheists generally don't specifically speak out against atheists who commit crime, all atheists are bad?

Do you not see how stupid it is to discriminate thusly, against whole segments of society?

If crime is your concern, then concern yourself with crime. Expanding your concern to include non-criminals with the criminals, only because you don't like their personal interests and activities, is blatant discrimination.

So therefore; as atheists do commit crime, and atheists generally don't specifically speak out against atheists who commit crime, all atheists are bad?

Do you not see how stupid it is to discriminate thusly, against whole segments of society?

If crime is your concern, then concern yourself with crime. Expanding your concern to include non-criminals with the criminals, only because you don't like their personal interests and activities, is blatant discrimination.

Actually, Atheist can be just as vocal speaking out against acts as violence as Christians.

Their is NO DATA to suggest other wise.

Heck, my friend an Atheist works for the police.

No, and that wasn't what I was speaking of.

In regards to crime, that's very much dominated by the religious if you go by the stats, but that's another conversation.

Remember when otto went off the deepend and all the atheists went after his commentary and ignored all else?

That's the sort of meme control that is absent from religion.

Again, you're over-generalizing the statement.

Their interests and activities aren't personal when they attempt to infiltrate secular society.

MorituriMax:

Wouldn't it be wiser to prosecute your anger against the perpetrators of crime, rather than discriminate against whole segments of societies because some people in those segments happen to commit crime?

You do know that atheists also murder, torture, and whatnot, don't you? Why then don't you equally hate and debase all atheists?

ubavontuba, You do know that atheists also murder, torture, and whatnot, don't you? Why then don't you equally hate and debase all atheists?

The subject was anger towards God. Where do you see me being angry toward anyone who doesn't deserve it?

Or is it politically incorrect in your mind NOT to be angry at people who kill and torture others people because Gawd says it's okay in their minds?

Or is it okay in your mind that children suffer incredible pain and death even though Gawd is supposedly loving and kind?

Trying to shift the subject is not going to work, ubavontuba.

ubavontuba, You do know that atheists also murder, torture, and whatnot, don't you? Why then don't you equally hate and debase all atheists?

Ummm, yeah but being an atheist isn't like being a christian. Being a murderer is a choice. Being a muslim is a choice. Being a politician is a choice. Atheism is not believing in ANY gods. Are you trying to say that there are no murderers who are also stamp collectors? That there are no atheists who are also not chess players? Hmmm, I wonder if aswimmers or ajoggers can be lumped in with serial killers like Ted Bundy or murderers like Hitler? Was Hitler an aballroom dancer? If you yourself only believe in ONE God aren't you then much more likely to murder than someone who believe in ALL Gods, by your logic?

kevinrtrs, This means that God has accepted the sacrifice [in Jesus' death] that turns away His wrath. It's only up to us to humble ourselves and accept that gift of life. In that humbling lies the whole point of Christianity - to accept that the love of God is found in the death of Jesus, not in relief of our physical stress."

So what's stopping them?

Right, there's no data to suggest atheists organize to defend human rights and freedom and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying either.

Whereas religious organizations which do these things abound!

And, if I recall correctly, Jesus only "stayed" dead for 3 days. After that he was up and around, none the worse for wear.

The solution to understanding Christianity [ and I'm not speaking for religion] is that religion says DO,DO, DO, whereas Christianity says "It is done."

The amazing thing that then follows is that when our souls find rest in Christ a lot of the physical stress also disappears.

THIS IS A SCIENCE site! NOT a fucking religious one!!
Moderator: please enforce this!

Tkjtkj wrote, THIS IS A SCIENCE site! NOT a fucking religious one!!
Moderator: please enforce this!

God will provide.

AND, since religion presents the biggest threat to scientific pursuit and to the world, it's good to discuss it here.

Actually, Atheist can be just as vocal speaking out against acts as violence as Christians.

So what's stopping them?

Their is NO DATA to suggest other wise.

Right, there's no data to suggest atheists organize to defend human rights and freedom and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying either. Whereas religious organizations which do these things abound!

Heck, my friend an Atheist works for the police.

That's nice, but how is it relevant? I have a job too.

Why must science be more arrogant than religion? You look even more ridiculous. Open your minds. Grow up.

Why must science be more arrogant than religion? You look even more ridiculous. Open your minds. Grow up.

So fight against theocracy then. I'll gladly help.

steve40004, Open your minds."

Christians, not satisfied with the prevailing delusion can also pray to saints, other religious figures, relics, holy places or dead relatives.

The idea of one intellect is a Non sequitur.
By communicating over the internet we become "one" mind.
Mind is infinitely divisible and additive.

By communicating over the internet we become "one" mind.

The answer to this question requires an investigation of Godly Love, which is defined as the dynamic interaction between divine and human love that enlivens and expands benevolence.

Hey religionaries;

"(CNN) -- Arkansas game officials hope testing scheduled to begin Monday will solve the mystery of why more than 1,000 blackbirds fell from the sky just before midnight New Year's Eve.
The birds -- most of which were dead -- were found within a one-mile area of Beebe, about 40 miles northeast of Little Rock, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission said."

-And this is right near that swarm of 500 earthquakes in the last month or so, where there shouldn't be any. What do you think? (I know what you think) Is it Armageddon or ragnarok or merely a reminder to repent or else? Which?

So fight against theocracy then. I'll gladly help.

We are, and you're criticizing us for it now.

Right, there's no data to suggest atheists organize to defend human rights and freedom and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying either.

Of course they do, moreso than religionists...

You already assume, none of your arguments hold scientific value. Sorry, you can't argue on the premise you just set.

So you think your bigoted, anonymous postings here, are fighting against theocracy? Really?

Wow. This is too easy ...like shooting fish in a barrel.

So you think your bigoted, anonymous postings here, are fighting against theocracy? Really?

Wow. This is too easy ...like shooting fish in a barrel.

So you admit you're unable to provide any evidence of atheist organizations which defend human rights, freedom, and democracy

or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying?

Ah, it's like having a complete meal prepared by a gourmet chef in my home, for free (mmm... brazed halibut!). There! That's how easy it is!

What is going on here? Scientist studying anger at mythological beings? As a thought experiment, try substituting "Zeus" for "God" in this article and then ask yourself if it would get published. This is scary. America is dangerously religious. Please, religious people, come back to Earth, we need you here! Stop believing in your apocalypse and interfaith bickering and join in the real battle against death, disease and war.

http
://www.atheists.org/

-Defending the rights and freedoms of all those oppressed by organized irrationality.

http
://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.d8aaecf214c576bf971e4cfe43181aa0/?vgnextoid=477859f392ce8110VgnVCM10000030f3870aRCRD&vgnextfmt=default

So I'm still waiting for references for ATHEIST organizations

http
://www.unitedway.org/worldwide/

So I'm still waiting for references for ATHEIST organizations

What the hell is an atheist organization anyway?

So I'm still waiting for references for ATHEIST organizations which defend human rights, freedom, and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying?

Perhaps you might take a Civics course. Learn a little about your rights and responsibilities as a citizen. Perhaps visit your city council...

So I'm still waiting for references for ATHEIST organizations which defend human rights, freedom, and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying?

Sorry, The Red Cross is not an atheist organization. It's religiously neutral.

Come on, I've seen all the versions of Clash of the Titans, how on Earth could you ever be mad at Zeus? He has such a wholesome family ethic.... heh.

You didn't know the United Way is rooted in religion and was initially conceived by a priest, two ministers and a rabbi?...And its founder (Clara Barton) was a self-described Universalist (Christian).

You didn't know the United Way is rooted in religion

Isnt the condition of not acknowledging god the equivalent of denying he exists

Unicef, USAID, ACLU, NAACP, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, need I go on?

I'd strongly suggest you take a breath before you post this sort of nonsense. It sounds like you're getting mad. You shouldn't post angry.

You mean like every government on earth?

If Jesus and God are so great, why are we today in 2011, still totally absorbed with what was supposedly said 2,000 years ago? Shouldn't we see something from God that is a bit more recent? No newer books worth writing from the big guy? Nothing new coming out of the Vatican that's a bit more... relevant to todays events?

I just always wonder why religious types are left with nothing other than 2,000 year old verses to try and make us live our lives the way they want.

Shouldn't we see something from God that is a bit more recent? No newer books worth writing from the big guy? Nothing new coming out of the Vatican that's a bit more... relevant to todays events?

Anyway, if Jesus wasn't the Son of God, he was (or his writers' were) a genius. He understood the human condition, and offered practicable solutions.

I think this is highly likely. Now before the faithful jump all over this and mess up the thread, this is not a matter of faith. This is a matter of psychological reasoning. If a God exists, no matter what your faith is, it would be very difficult to be mad with a concept. Whether that concept is legitimate or not. For example, I couldn't get mad at someone's ignorance, I can only get mad at my inability to reach them.

Shouldn't we see something from God that is a bit more recent? No newer books worth writing from the big guy? Nothing new coming out of the Vatican that's a bit more... relevant to todays events?

We are not godless. YOU are the one making something up and living by it. That does not require us to be against it. To us it's just like elves, unicorns and other stuff people dream up to make their seemingly unbearable and chaotic lives less so.

Any such tone you detect, comes from the reader (you), as I'm having fun (at yours and otto's expense)!

...Jesus says: 'In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.'"

Meaning that you cannot follow the golden rule properly unless you accept god first. Therefore, heathens cannot be expected to treat you as they would treat themselves and thus cannot be trusted.

Just thought that was worth pointing out.

But youre getting stomped... This makes you happy in the sense that jesus likes martyrs perhaps?

Geniuses have been known to exist throughout history. People who understand the human condition and offer solutions have been known to exist thoughout history.

Your alternatives to Jesus not being the Son of God are actually pretty reasonable.

This is true, but few words have been as durable as Jesus', or as broadly insightful.

Now tell me honestly, otto and Skeptic Heretic, have either of you personally contributed to any such charitable organizations? Have you volunteered?

So, how's it coming with that GRAND list of atheist organizations which defend human rights, freedom, and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying?

This is true, but few words have been as durable as Jesus', or as broadly insightful.

He promised eternal life which is a lie.

Sorry deceptive godder religionist. You'll have to be more specific than that.

He's just strongly implied he can falsify and non-falsifiable statement!

He's just strongly implied he can falsify and non-falsifiable statement!

It isn't unfalsifiable. Point out someone who's older than 150. They don't exist, therefore the whole eternal life ordeal is false.

YOU lied, Christ MAY have lied.

And I can wonder why so many people choose to declare that they do exist despite the complete lack of evidence for it.
cont-

Unless of course you have definitive proof there is no existence after death. If so provide it and I'll gladly recant.

This is another case of the burden of proof being on the accuser rather than the accused.

This is another case of the burden of proof being on the accuser rather than the accused.

I beg to differ. Otto specifically said there IS no life after death. I'm asking him to prove it...

Especially since they claim their sole methodology is reason, logic, and science.

This is another case of the burden of proof being on the accuser rather than the accused.

I beg to differ. Otto specifically said there IS no life after death. I'm asking him to prove it...

Which I just did. Thankyou for the opportunity, deceptive godder religionist.

This is another case of the burden of proof being on the accuser rather than the accused.

I beg to differ. Otto specifically said there IS no life after death. I'm asking him to prove it...

Which I just did. Thankyou for the opportunity, deceptive godder religionist.

Sorry, where was it? I missed it...

I missed it because it was completely absent Otto. All I saw was your usual anti-religious screed and specious "conclusions" about religion.

Nothing about definitive about there not being an existence after death.

Go fish...

I missed it because it was completely absent Otto.

Religion is for the weak and supercilious, not for strong, skilled searchers after truth, in short, aethists.

and I only have a slight peeve with an atheist who says "I'm not sure but I doubt it."

Anyway, if Jesus wasn't the Son of God, he was (or his writers' were) a genius. He understood the human condition, and offered practicable solutions.

Sometimes faith is simply about believing in the things worth believing in. I believe in the words of Jesus, and I believe in Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.

and I only have a slight peeve with an atheist who says "I'm not sure but I doubt it."

Why?

and I only have a slight peeve with an atheist who says "I'm not sure but I doubt it."

Why?

Otto is arguing for a flat 0% possibility

which he can't support with evidence.

That person is then not an atheist, but an agnostic.

I like the term anti-theist, because I am against all churches and religions.

and I only have a slight peeve with an atheist who says "I'm not sure but I doubt it."

Why?

For the same reason I'd be peeved at a weather man who said there was a 80% chance of rain on October 10th 2015...

I respectfully disagree with your definitions. Oxford says an anti-theist is one opposed to the belief in the existence of a god. Religion is the practice of fostering such belief. Anti-theism makes no claim about whether or not the world would be awful if god really existed. I strongly oppose those who allow themselves belief in god. I don't even let myself get to the point of worrying about how bad things would be if god were real, because that's giving a bit too much credit to the cultists of the world in my mind.

"Flame of Love Project" ...

Weather Man = "I see evidence, therefore it's likely that...."
Atheist = "I see no evidence, therefore it's unlikely that...."

That's a poor analogy and I think you know better.

. Just as an atheist has no evidence that there PROBABLY isn't an intelligent force behind creation.

Just as an atheist has no evidence that there PROBABLY isn't an intelligent force behind creation.

This is true, but few words have been as durable as Jesus', or as broadly insightful.

Aesops fables, the Code of Hammurabi, the Book of the Dead, etc. Holy books tend to persist unless the adherants are wiped out.

Now tell me honestly, otto and Skeptic Heretic, have either of you personally contributed to any such charitable organizations? Have you volunteered?

Yes, have you?

You've read the examples offered and the arguments conclusively defending them and yet you act as if you didn't. This makes you a liar. As usual.

So let's clarify this statement... It doesn't matter to you if everything in the bible is a bald faced lie, because you already decided its worth believing in?

It wouldn't bother you one bit if you knew heaven, hell, the soul, were all made up by someone who wanted to impart his philosophical views?

Not surprising at all from a cultist.

This is a logical fallacy, as demonstrably, a lot of it is verified in the archaeological record.

Not particularly. If they don't exist, I won't exist to care. But if they do exist, I'll be better prepared (so to speak).

I'd argue these works are not as broadly insightful, although Aesop's Fables are quite good.

Weather Man = "I see evidence, therefore it's likely that...."
Atheist = "I see no evidence, therefore it's unlikely that...."

That's a poor analogy and I think you know better.

Not at all. We ALL know that the weather can't be reliably predicted by more than 10 days out. Did you look at the date I gave? IOW the weather man can't possibly have evidence that it's PROBABLY going to rain on any given day in 2015. Just as an atheist has no evidence that there PROBABLY isn't an intelligent force behind creation.

No, it isn't.

So that answer doesn't make sense. Just to paraphrase your statement as I read it:
If you discovered the entire concept of religion was merely a scam used to manipulate you, you'd no longer exist. I think you made an assumption there.

You never read the Book of the Dead.

Sure, I stretched the context a little. But I think it's clear why.

Generally, it's a funerary book of spells, not social commentary and wisdom.

Not particularly. If they don't exist, I won't exist to care. But if they do exist, I'll be better prepared (so to speak).

That type of thinking, unsurprisingly, frequently results in the marginalization of minority groups.

@ Otto and SH:

So, where's this supposed magnificent list of ATHEIST charity organizations?

Uba, that isn't proof of the events, that's proof of the setting existing.
New York exists, does that mean spiderman is real?

Because you're being intellectually dishonest and that spot where you admit it is you trying to not be intellectually dishonest.

It was to the adherants of that religion, just as your Bible is to you, Aesop's fables were to the greek slaves, etc.

My question isn't a logical fallacy because it's a hypothetical question. I asked if you would care, given X.

I wasn't particularly talking about your bid for an afterlife. I'm talking about the actions you choose to take here on earth, how you make those decisions, and how they affect others.

A logical fallacy. He wrote, "everything in the bible..." not "every event..."

Which is not in context with what I wrote about social commentary on the human condition and durability. Or, would you suggest ancient Egyptian funerary rituals are still broadly practiced?

Religions tend to tell people that they have an unquestionable moral superiority and a direct line to the highest authority in the universe. That type of thinking, unsurprisingly, frequently results in the marginalization of minority groups.

The truth is there are no significant, strictly atheist charity organizations.

And as for the secular charitable organizations, they are largely staffed by religious people who use them as a vehicle of religious service.

Atheists Helping the Homeless

American Humanist Association

International Humanist and Ethical Union

Fellowship of Freethought

Foundation Beyond Belief

Kiva Lending Team

Atheist Centre of India

Atheist Relief Fund

The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.
Secular Humanist Aid and Relief Effort
Doctors without borders
CARE
UNICEF

and naturally, many, many more ...

No, context matters. And it is quite trite to use semantics to invent a fallacy argument.

More than half the Old Testament Bible is a depiction of rules regarding rites. The two are not much different when read objectively. Do you stone children to death, or slaughter your livestock in a particular manner? No, but your holy book contains those instructions.

Anther fallacy. As we've discussed previously, save for the Ten Commandments, the Old Testament Law is irrelevant to Christians. It says so, in the New Testament.

Generally, already discussed, above.

Angrysparrow has graciously added some to the list.

They absolutely are not. And until you provide some figures to backup that mindless bullshit statement, my assertion stands. In fact, I bet you they are prohibited from doing so by law.

That's the great thing about the New Testament. It also says that it would be easier for everything in existence to disappear, than to have "one stroke of the pen fall from the Law." Difference is, Jesus was the one who stated the Law persists, while it was Paul who said the covenant had been fulfilled.

Which one is supposedly God again?

You seem to think that secularism is a religion. It is not. If you are not a religious organization, you are a secular organization.

Angrysparrow has graciously added some to the list.

So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets.
-Mark 8:8

I have no evidence that telepathic elves don't switch around my socks when I sleep. Therefore, it is completely reasonable to assume they do by your logic. The null hypothesis is to not believe it. I would suggest you prove that Dr. Russell's teapot isn't in orbit between Earth and Mars. Do you know 100% there is no Lochness monster? Then there is.

FIRST you must show some merit in the statement "there is a god" THEN you can attack atheist. Not one second earlier.

1. They are ALL charities - sorry - get over it.

2. They're not "grand"? So? You just said charities

3. You just said atheist charities - I spent 30 seconds getting some names of the internet.

So, no atheist charities? Charitable deeds not good enough for you?

you make a statement, someone shows you're wrong, you say you meant something else, someone shows you're wrong again, you change it all again

First YOU must show proof there is no God THEN you can attack a theist. Not one second earlier. Like I said I got no philosophical truck with someone who says they don't know. I got plenty of truck with ANYONE who says they KNOW something when they can't possibly...

For a supposed Christian, Uba, you really are a bit of an arrogant one - no a single bone of humility in you.

Anther fallacy. As we've discussed previously, save for the Ten Commandments, the Old Testament Law is irrelevant to Christians. It says so, in the New Testament.

God will provide.

AND, since religion presents the biggest threat to scientific pursuit and to the world, it's good to discuss it here.

OH PLEASE!

Science ALWAYS corrects Religion, throughout history.

Religion HAS NEVER corrected Science - NEVER.

...and adam and eve rode dinosaurs to church on Sunday.

So, no atheist charities? Charitable deeds not good enough for you?

The original claim (by otto) was that atheists do "moreso (sic) than religionists" to organize and defend human rights, freedom, and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying.

You have no concept of a burden of proof. And I'm glad that you don't just write off telepathic elves. By the way, I know for sure there isn't a god because I'm the one that created the universe. I did it in 1985 (your calendar) and I made it look as if everything is much older. So now you know. And don't you dare question it until you can prove that I didn't. Of course, I am in no way responsible for proving my claim, it is your burden to disprove my claim. Have fun, you can't, ergo, I am God.

moreso (sic)

First YOU must show proof there is no God THEN you can attack a theist. Not one second earlier.

First YOU must show proof there is no God THEN you can attack a theist. Not one second earlier.

That's not really going to stop me for one. Sorry.

Actually I do have proof you didn't. All I'd have to do is a public records search of your birth.

As to burdens of proof, ANY atheist who says there is no God is making a positive assertion.

Uba:

You're either a very disingenuous, arrogant person, or simply someone who doesn't realize how patently silly you sound.

You'll recall, arrogant deceptive godder religionist, the time we all discussed the Law, you lost badly.

And your Brooks reference has been discounted:

"Who Really Cares was widely reviewed and critiqued. Many commentators thought that Brooks played up the role of religion too much, arguing that a charity gap is largely erased when religious giving is not considered."

-In other words just another French horn player looking to sell books by spicing things up a little bit. It does stand to reason that godders would much rather donate to their own faith-based agencies so they can feel confident their money isn't going to fund art like Jesus in a bottle of pee-

Oh and Brooks worked for the Rand Corp think tank- policy-makers and social engineers. They are supposed to tell us what we think- that's their job.

Isn't the red cross secular? Doctors without borders?

I tried to post a link, but the spam filter ate it.

Isn't the red cross secular? Doctors without borders?

I tried to post a link, but the spam filter ate it.

Are you being disingenuous, or are you having a hard time following the discussion?

Most authoritative sources fail to acknowledge the word as one word. Using 'moreso' or 'more so' is dependent on the meaning desired.

I haven't had enough interest to read all of your comments. I got the impression you were searching for secular charities. Is your disagreement with the organizations I've listed (ie are they not secular?), or have I misinterpreted your challenge to list secular organizations?

ouch, downvoted by Uba...

*sad-face*

I haven't had enough interest to read all of your comments. I got the impression you were searching for secular charities. Is your disagreement with the organizations I've listed (ie are they not secular?), or have I misinterpreted your challenge to list secular organizations?

You've apparently misinterpreted the challenge. "Secular," in this guise (as in, nondenominational religious tolerance), is not a stand in for "atheist" (as in, anti-religious).

It was a valid reference from a prestigious organization, and I noticed you provided no counter reference - but only ad hominem attacks. Why is that?

No, I said I forged the records. That is the nature of the Trekgeek1 god. I cannot be detected by your standard human methods. I am unable to be detected aka unknowable.

The "positive" assertion of an atheist that god doesn't exist does require a burden of proof.

It was a valid reference from a prestigious organization, and I noticed you provided no counter reference - but only ad hominem attacks. Why is that?

Was you born stoopid or did you has had a accident?

God says don't lie. Is that another Law you don't think applies to xians, like the Jesuits do?

Your charity claims have been also refuted. Own up marjonite dog. Also, list only ONE Xian charity which doesn't preach along with it's giving.

There are a few, but they are the minority.

Any one without reference to religion in it's name that is, which tells recipients that they're receiving aid from people who are obviously generous only because they are godly.

Any one without reference to religion in it's name that is, which tells recipients that they're receiving aid from people who are obviously generous only because they are godly.

I'm not going to mince words. I'm hard pressed to accomplish this task to any respectable degree. Many of the various "Christian" monikered hospital organizations do not prosetlyze.

Would you care to help me change this?

Athiesm is still not anti-religious. Athiest and secularist are stand in's for one another. You're assuming a definition that was never discussed.

There are also "anti-theist" charities, the RDF for one.

Was you born stoopid or did you has had a accident? Pressdidigeious organized peoples well refuted and trashed your vacuum cleaner company ref., was my counter-ref. God says don't lie. Is that another Law you don't think applies to xians, like the Jesuits do?

Your charity claims have been also refuted.

Own up marjonite dog. Also, list only ONE Xian charity which doesn't preach along with it's giving.

Secondly Uba, look at your activity page. It's all just this article. Now I suppose that you could be browsing the science articles but feel no need to post comments, but Occams Razor would indicate you're on an agenda here. Whatever, it's not for me to tell you what to do, but nothing is really being furthered by these comments-discussions..

All in all it's an unfair comparison to begin with.
Atheists and agnostics don't (by and large) have churches, and to the scale of religious organisations, don't meet in mass like they do.

Brought down on a more personal level, I would say that they at least meet, if not exceed in their charity and giving compared to the religious. But it will generally come without some identifying tag or marker showing their philosophical affiliations.
Kind of a moot point, when you look at it structurally..

And I don't think it's at all a cop-out. In public, I still have to contend that the non-religious don't carry a structured presence on the scale that christian (or any other religeon) groups will show.

Politically, I get a bit griped when the context get framed that because a certain leader of a nation was non-religious, that their actions represented the values or moral character of the rest who are not.

I was referring not to individual leaders, but the governments' stated positions and policies.

Greed and power is non-denominational,

Clearly, your position differs from otto's on this.

and at no time in history can I say I've found a leader or government that was representative of my moral values. (or yours, for that matter)

Some come closer than others.

I'm off of it.

I quite agree.

Forge me some birth records and send them to me. Otherwise I'll conclude you're lying. Since you're God you know my address...

You've engaged in constant repositioning of goalposts and created a false construct of what atheist means due to a perception, on your part, that we're out to get you.

is not a stand in for "atheist" (as in, anti-religious).

So we can see uba can't argue in a straightforward or cohesive manner when proved wrong

and he doesn't want to relent on an incorrect notion.

I've satisfied your queries

and I haven't been unduely abrasive about it. You've engaged in constant repositioning of goalposts and created a false construct of what atheist means due to a perception, on your part, that we're out to get you.

SOME Atheists are anti-religious.

Otto is NOT the best example of Atheists.

Secular charities are not exclusive to Atheist but where do you think Atheists are going to give money to.

Right, and it's to two such of them that my posts have been directed.

I've steadfastly stood for religious tolerance and you've been just as steadfastly intolerant.

Otto is NOT the best example of Atheists

Frankly, I don't think he's much of an example of a human being.

According to otto, they have their own charitable organizations - even "moreso than religionists."

Sure. Here's an article about 10 Christians who gave their lives serving the needy in Afghanistan

Sure. Here's an article about 10 Christians who gave their lives serving the needy in Afghanistan

MM,

I was wrong, you don't know better. Seriously, take a logical reasoning class, or just go to Wiki's fallacy page, study up, and practice somewhere else until you can admit you are wrong.

Kinda like those guys who hit the gym every day for those rock hard abs...trying to make up for something.

And you're incorrect. I'm not anti-religious. I'm anti-theist, big big difference.

No, you've stead fastly stood on a platform of Christian priviledge. That is going to end. If you see that as trying to destroy or defame Christianity, then that's just too bad. It's a difference of opinion we will not ever agree on.

How have I supposedly been proven wrong, and to what inconsistencies do you refer (be specific and use references)?

So you admit you're unable to provide any evidence of atheist organizations which defend human rights, freedom, and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying?

You've apparently misinterpreted the challenge. "Secular," in this guise (as in, nondenominational religious tolerance), is not a stand in for "atheist" (as in, anti-religious)

And, the criteria the atheist charities must meet was set forth by otto, not me. I've only just repeated them.

No this was your original misleading implication.

Right, there's no data to suggest atheists organize to defend human rights and freedom and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying either.

Of course they do, moreso than religionists...

Oh, I doubt that. References?

The organizations I and others mentioned are GODLESS as I said, as in god is irrelevant, unnecessary, and detrimental to the process of giving aid equitably.

You stated that you were originally looking for atheist organisations as below.

Secular examples were given and it was explained that secular and atheist are essentially the same thing with respect to charities (ie. they can have both atheist and religious members, but the organisation is not about the religion itself).[\q]Again, you haven't read enough of the argument to understand the history. Regardless, I doubt you'd find the Red Cross declaring itself to be an "atheist organization." Certainly not the United Way (founded by a priest, two ministers and a rabbi).

The original challenge, however, was never to provide anti-religious charities.

In context, it was.

In this challenge to which you refer, as otto was to provide atheist organizations, you were also to provide charitable Christian organizations that do not proselytise.

I never claimed I could, but I did

You stated that you were originally looking for atheist organisations as below.

Secular examples were given and it was explained that secular and atheist are essentially the same thing with respect to charities (ie. they can have both atheist and religious members, but the organisation is not about the religion itself).

The original challenge, however, was never to provide anti-religious charities.

In this challenge to which you refer, as otto was to provide atheist organizations, you were also to provide charitable Christian organizations that do not proselytise.

I know I have a perfectly reasonable position.

and I only have a slight peeve with an atheist who says "I'm not sure but I doubt it."

For the same reason I'd be peeved at a weather man who said there was a 80% chance of rain on October 10th 2015...

First YOU must show proof there is no God THEN you can attack a theist.

Christian organizations that do not proselytise. You never responded to this and accused the atheist organizations provided later of the same proselytism.

You then state (in the same post as the one where you ask what inconsistencies everyone's referring to) that it was otto who stated the criteria for an atheist charity when I've shown above you are the one who defined atheist as anti-religionist.

...religionists ...uniformly aid only those within their flock, or those they wish to convert.

Your failure to keep to the context is the problem. The definition isn't a broad definition. It's a narrow definition, relevant to this conversation only.

Which is clearly false. Many of the secular organizations were started by religious people, seeking to aid anyone in need - regardless of the recipient's religious views.

You keep asking us to prove a negative.

Until you understand burden of proof, I'm done with you.

When does voting begin to put MM as an official member of the misologists?

My failure to keep context? How about your failure to recognize the actual definition of a word. I (and others reading this conversation) took atheist organization as one without religion as being a primary motive or mission. As such, secular is the same as atheist.

Atheists who are charitable would flock to these secular organizations as they can feel free to be charitable without being forced to preach or be preached to.

A-theism = without theism. Secular removes religion from the mission of the organization. Secular = without theism.

Humping my leg again eh Otto? What is it with you anyway? I think you have an unhealthy obsession. Try cold showers, running, exercise in general.

Sorry man, you're just not my type...

I wish otto would stop talking in absolutes all the time because he really hurts his case.

It IS false that "..religionists ...uniformly aid only those within their flock, or those they wish to convert."

That being said, it is hardly uncommon for theist organizations to spread the good word (which is conversion).

It IS false that "..religionists ...uniformly aid only those within their flock, or those they wish to convert."

You didn't read back far enough, but I reiterated the case in my letter just prior to this one.

Upon further reflection:

Perhaps it's better to say "atheist" adheres more to a specific anti-theist demographic, whereas "secular" generally refers to non-religious organizations, in a broadminded (all inclusive) sense.

But otto's claims are the basis for the discussion.

It's hard to choose the correct words all the time in this format. By uniformly I meant consistently but not absolutely.

They do not want to see their money wasted on causes which run counter to their faith,

and the stronger their faith is the more restricted their giving is going to be; I think it is safe to assume these things.

You keep asking us to prove a negative.

No I keep asking you to prove the positive statement you make when you say "There is no God". GET IT?

Upon further reflection:

Perhaps it's better to say "atheist" adheres more to a specific anti-theist demographic, whereas "secular" generally refers to non-religious organizations, in a broadminded (all inclusive) sense.

You really think you're qualified to be defining those things?

Which everybody proved false.

I agree we are/were obviously arguing about different things.

That being said, the word atheist should not be used to refer to an anti-theist demographic specifically as its one causes of the confusion/arguments exampled by this thread.

Anti-theism is a subset of atheism. Generalizations of the beliefs of a whole group based on the beliefs of a subset of that group is irresponsible.

I just want to know why people like me peeve you.

I remember when defining the word atheist used to interest me.

Theists like uba here WANT to lump us all together. They SEEM to want a homogeneous target for easier argumentation.

Deal with it, dude. You're going to have to argue the logic, not the person.

Statistics on generosity don't matter to me. Morality does. "There are no good guys and bad guys. It's just a bunch of guys."

That depends on the religion and interpretations thereof. In Christianity, we're taught to give to anyone in need (ever hear the story of the Good Samaritan?).

Anti-theism is a subset of atheism. Generalizations of the beliefs of a whole group based on the beliefs of a subset of that group is irresponsible.

Fair question, and I'll give an honest answer.

"There are no good guys and bad guys. It's just a bunch of guys."

I am disinclined to agree.

Elaborate, please. Do you believe in original sin? Yes, we are imperfect creatures in a complex world, but IMHO, 95-99% of us are trying to do the right thing and sometimes interests collide.

No, that's what you claim to be. Your words say otherwise.

No, you've stead fastly stood on a platform of Christian priviledge. That is going to end. If you see that as trying to destroy or defame Christianity, then that's just too bad. It's a difference of opinion we will not ever agree on.

See? By your words, you're anti-religious and intolerant.

So making Christians toe the same line as everyone else in the world is "anti-christian and intolerant"? Grow up.

So what now? Perhaps you think the law is applied more liberally to Christians than anyone else?

Why is it then, that "Christian" nations tend to have secular governments which give the right of religious freedom to all, whereas "non-Christian" countries (like Muslim and Communist countries) tend to deny this right?

Well when you have laws on the books that prevent non-christians from taking office in various states, yes I do.

I think the law is often twisted to the favor of Christians. Which religions have federal holidays in the US again?

Well what usually happens is a group of Protestants ran from theocractic catholic country X in order to have their own religious freedom. Then a bunch of atheists and deists showed up and joined them and got religious freedom laws passed, like in the US, France, the Netherlands, etc.

Perhaps you might explain to which states you refer? In the USA, this would clearly be unconstitutional.

Not much of a student of history, are you?

Christmas, as a tradition, was passed down to us through our European roots. That we celebrate it as we do is simply based on societal traditions and consensus.

Get real and learn a little about history and the law, before you spout off.

"The modern legal concept of religious freedom ...originated in the United States of America."

Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. They all have different clauses in their respective constitutions which say that people who don't believe in God (or, alternatively, A Supreme Being) can't hold public offices.

This link might get mangled.
http:/everything2.com/title/American+states+with+anti-atheist+laws

Many Christian countries also deny the right to have religious freedom. Take the blinders off.

Some have officially recognized religions, but the personal freedom to profess freely is generally universal in Christian countries.

Seriously, take a Political Science class, or something.

Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. They all have different clauses in their respective constitutions which say that people who don't believe in God (or, alternatively, A Supreme Being) can't hold public offices.

This link might get mangled.
http:/everything2.com/title/American+states+with+anti-atheist+laws

So you want to tell me that the Puritans didn't come to the US from Theocratic Britain to avoid religious persecution and their atheist and deist decendants didn't found the US with other protestants?

Perhaps you want to tell me what I said that is historically inaccurate.

A lot of what you're saying is historically inacurate, such as your assertion that atheists came in and passed the religious freedom laws.

Now who needs to study their history. When did the various governmental reforms take place in France and the other European countries that have adopted rleigious freedom? Yep, after the US did it.

I'm waiting for you to show me where I'm wrong in my assertions. I really am.

How's that different from the reference I quoted?

Please name all these supposed atheists whom you assert passed the religious freedom laws (inspite of the majority Christian wishes).

Except for some of the most Christian countries in the world. Rwanda for one is a convert or die situation,

and don't neglect to mention the sectarian violence of North Ireland.

I was pulled out of a car at gun point and asked if I was Catholic or Protestant. Told him I was an atheist and that must've confused him as his next question was, well are you a catholic atheist or a protestant atheist. Not exactly a fun day in my life.

I've taken several. I'd really like you to point out where you think I'm wrong. Especially when 2 of our last 4 presidents have said Atheists shouldn't be citizens.

The first law that established religious freedom as seen in the Constitution came from the Constitution of Virginia and that was penned by Thomas Jefferson, a deist, and shaped for intent with Benjamin Franklin, an atheist, and passed by a collection of theists, deists, and athiests twice. Once in Virginia, and then again in the General Assembly.

Tell me where I'm wrong in that statement.

Their personal opinions are theirs alone - and even if they're wrong, they have a right to them. They haven't the weight of law.

You just admitted it was passed mostly by a collection of deists and theists!

Seriously, just what percentage of the votes are you proposing came from atheists now? It looks like you're only claiming one!

See, this is what I was talking about when I said inventing fallacies. You first suggest I learn my history when I claim that atheists and deists got together with Christians and passed rleigious freedom. Then you cite a reference that states nothing on the matter but instead dates where the concept of religious freedom comes from. I show you that I'm correct and now you question what my aim was in the first place. Seriously, you really need to get a grip on this.

And now you're either creating a straw man and suggesting that I said Christians opposed religious freedom in total,

or you're moving the goalposts over into an inprovable area and attempting to claim victory on a point that was never to be argued in the first place.

You certainly implied it.

The point of the conversation is: Religious freedom is brought to you by way of Christian values, not atheist (or any other religion's) values.

Well the Lecky quote is merely the same thing that has been said of Christianity since the iconoclast. "Christian X thinks Christian Y is a heretic. Burn him." Happened throughout all of history. It is a violent religion towards it's own most often throughout history. When you say it is more about politics, you're right. It always has been. Ever since the first split in the church it has been political. One of the crusades was due to a dispute between the eastern orthodox and the roman catholics. The War of the roses, the English French wars, all due to religious politics.

Christianity has been a political weapon for a long time, perhaps, since inception.

Maybe you think Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because the Japanese are Catholics?

Sadly, you are correct. That's because people will politicize anything and everything to get what they want.

Because of the Freedom FROM Religion clause of the Constitution.

I didn't admit it, I claimed it initially and proved it subsequently, and you've disagreed with it the whole time. Another fallacy from you.

I'm not claiming any particular statistics. My one and only relevant claim here is Modern Religious Freedom, otherwise known as Secularism, born in the US, and as seen around the world, is the product of Atheists, Deists, and Theists during the enlightenment.[q/]Nope. Your claim was that it was "a bunch of atheists and deists showed up and joined them and got religious freedom laws passed."

More accurately, a bunch of theists passed the reigious freedom laws, but a couple of desists and maybe an (unnamed) atheist particiapted.

No, you imagined it.

It looks to me like you're implying Christians generally oppose religious freedom.

And I can tell you it would have happened with or without christianity because it had already happened once in Greece long before Christianity ever existed, and again in the Middle East afterwards. Then religion took over in both instances and the Enlightenment died. Don't let it die again.

No but that was religious in nature as well. The emperor of Japan was considered to be a living God amongst the people. As such the zero pilots would do as they did for their religion. Technically they were the very first technological suicide bombers.

And that is my problem with the entire ordeal. I've made that very clear to you but you persist in setting up political strawmen in regards to Christianity. You and the researcher above are politicizing Christianity, and when I point that out you claim a fallacy and create one of your own.

So now you're going to resort to trolling. This is when I start ignoring you.

1) It stands as said. Many christians think that there is a right to ban gay marriage, a right to make abortion illegal a right to "teach the controversy" and there isn't. There is no right to install religion, particularly Christianity, anywhere. And when it's pointed out, you call it discrimination. It isn't discrimination.

2) See 1

3) That was in regard to your statement that no Christian countries practice discrimination against non-Christians.

Quoting sections from Wikipedia about these topics is going to get you torn apart.

Ancient Greece and ancient Rome are HUGE topics.

The Romans conqured Greece, not religion.

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece#Roman_Greece

And the Ottoman empire just stagnated and died.

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

Like I said, learn a little bit about history, will you?

No, they have a right to try. It's called "freedom."

So would you like to talk about the Maccabees

or are you quite happy to give us a superficial overview of a subject that you have no knowledge of?

Obviously, I have more knowledge than you.

Much as the Christian goths destroyed Rome before it's enlightenment, the Maccabee Jews destroyed the Hellenic Empire.

You must bring a historical understanding of greater depth than elementary school education if you want to critique my understanding of history.

It's called Constitutional subversion. You're attempting to instill religion into law.

the Amendment provides freedom of thought, not infiltration of practice.

or are you quite happy to give us a superficial overview of a subject that you have no knowledge of?

Obviously, I have more knowledge than you.

Much as the Christian goths destroyed Rome before it's enlightenment, the Maccabee Jews destroyed the Hellenic Empire.

What now? Maybe you think the Jews captured Athens?

You must bring a historical understanding of greater depth than elementary school education if you want to critique my understanding of history.

Don't be ridiculous. You didn't even know the Romans conquered Greece! And apparently, didn't know the Romans conquered Judea, either.

Religious freedom began as a concept in America by the Puritans

Religious freedom is brought to you by way of Christian values, not atheist (or any other religion's) values.

Maybe you think Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because the Japanese are Catholics?

So far you've failed to use it.

No, I'm very sure they subverted the Hellenic empire from Judea after their revolt.

Actuall I knew both, but you seem to think that's all that happened, ie: your education in western history appears to be stunted at an 8th grade level.

As for your resentment of the Constitution remark, then stop doing it.

Not really. Religious freedom came from seeing what all those religious colonies did to other people. Like hang alleged witches. The Puritans came to the America's to avoid people with other religions.

No, religious freedom came from people being appalled by what religion could do when it had control like the happened in some of the colonies. Not just Deists and Quakers either. A lot of the religious people were fed up with religious government.

My mother always suspected that Truman Nuked Nagasaki because that was where the Catholics lived.

And again, you've engaged in multiple straw man fallacies, Uba.

You need to cut this out, no one will want to play with you anymore if you continue to be antisocial like this.

Fallacy after fallacy after fallacy, and you wanted to continue accusing us of doing the very same act you're repeating over and over.

That's cowardice.

Basically, my point is that saying that things were founded by religious people in the past... it just seems like a lot of it (obviously not all of it) is correlation, not causation.

...you typify Catholics as people with belief systems that leave them without the impetus to think for themselves. But Protestant belief systems are just as dogmatic and only generate the same sort of unthinking believers.

Actually, it was the mass printing of the Bible that drove up literacy. Protestants were taught to read in order for them to read it for themselves.

That's not really true. Although literacy wasn't widespread. The main driving force of the mass publication of the Bible was that people wanted to read it in their own language rather than have it read to them by the church. This was effectively a cornerstone fo the Protestant revolution.

I spent two years, trying to become an atheist....

I believe the truth is in our hearts, and not in our minds,simply because of love.

I spent two years, trying to become an atheist

kept running into the design argument, and logic dictated creator

it takes more faith to believe there is no God

It is impossible to prove a negative

But my maxim when pursuing atheism; the greatest proof there is no God, is there is no proof, that he exists

.Proving a positive, is really the only thing we can prove

We all must choose to believe in something, or believe in nothing, when it comes to a God

I believe the truth is in our hearts, and not in our minds,simply because of love