Talk:Atheists hate god

	This Atheism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

(create an archive)

Note 1

Fine, but the note must be reworded. There's zero doubt regarding the existence of religious people. It’s a fact. There's zero doubt regarding the factual existence of The Holocaust, The Apollo 11 Spaceflight, and the Earth being a spheroid. The note isn’t in regards to the belief or disbelief of a deity or its existence à la Romans 1:20. It concerns whether religious people exist and as was said before, that’s a factual yes. It is weak wording to say for example, "There's very little doubt that Californians exist." Better wordage that conveys more meaning would be, "no doubt," "zero doubt," or quite simply, "it is factually known that Californians exist."

Note 2a: The above text is not signed off and has been put in the wrong place.

Note 2b: As Hamlet might say the above text does not seem to be answering the question - do atheists hate god? Anna Livia (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is in the wrong spot I'm sorry, I don't edit wikis very often. Note 1 in the article led to a sentence that read "and there's very little doubt that religious people exist." It has now been reworded to be factual. The summary / note section for the edit has a word limit that would not permit the above reasoning to be stated. Though I'm still confused as to why Note 1 is in the article at all, the factual existence of religious people is beyond any doubt. Removing the note prompted an undo with the reason being that the note makes a point (what point is that?) and lots of Christians try to Romans 1:20. What does Romans 1:20 have to do with the existence of religious people? ^{— Unsigned, by: 76.218.230.54 / talk / contribs}

This article is stupid

I'm not meaning to vandalize or anything but how does this make atheists any different from other people (like Christians) who supposedly "hate" other groups? Like, you have to admit, calling Christians "Islamaphobes" for not likeing what Islam stands for is no different than what your saying, and calling people who think homosexuality is gross "homophobes". I mean I guess I kind of know what you mean, but what makes atheists different than everybody else accused of "hating" someone? And don't you kind of like admit you hate what God stands for here? Public School Girl (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Except that Christians disagreeing with Muslims is not what we mean when we say "hate." It is the discriminatory practices Christians impose against Muslims in the West that lead to the conclusion that many, but not all, Christians hate Muslims. This article is intended as a response to the idea that atheism, as an idea, necessitates hatred toward a divinity. Just as Christianity does not necessitate hatred towards Muslims, or Jews, or Hindus, or pagans, or even atheists. Furthermore, it's a lot easier to prove the existence of a Muslim than it is to prove the existence of a God.

The thing is that, unlike homophobes and Islamophobes, atheism, at least in theory, requires no real positive belief or investment. All it really means is the absence of belief in God, as opposed to the aforementioned phobia, which by definition require belief in their targets' existence. Granted, Some also see it as necessitating belief in other ideals, but that's more humanism than atheism. In my opinion, while the two ideas are connected and go well together, they by no means need to coincide.

Also, it absolutely is not vandalism to comment on a talkpage. That's what they're for. Feel free to do so anytime. I hope this kind of explains it a bit. Best, RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

In contexts such as this 'enlighten my ignorance in this area'/'expand my overview of the topic' or similar is probably more appropriate (and applies to all of us with regard to some topics).

There will always be those who feel very strongly against/hate other groups; and there is a tribal component to many groups (including eg sports team fans), but many others will be no more than vaguely curious/agree to disagree etc. Anna Livia (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Lack of nuance

Is what is being described 'straw-atheism'?

There are a multitude of atheisms (and I have come across the question - are you a Christian/Jewish/other atheist?): being anti-god, being anti-specific-gods, being anti-religion, being indifferent to god or gods (anyone care about the gods worshiped in Doggerland?), not believing but accepting that others do believe (and get some or many benefits from so believing) etc.

To what extent is it 'the people who believe atheists in general hate god (rather than particular examples)' who are actually having a problem with their own belief system? Anna Livia (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hate of hypothetical beings vs real beings

So I was reading this article and this line struck me as wierd; The first is hate against a hypothetical idea — ie, if God did exist, as described by the Bible or Qur'an, then they would hate that god.

The point of the article is to show that Atheists don't in general deny the existence of god out of hate and in specific don't deny evidence for god based on hate but it seems to me that this line is self defeating to that point.

Suppose it is in question whether dragons exist and I hate the hypothetical idea of dragon and those that believe in them. Now suppose they bring evidence like large piles of dung and noncontiguous large claw marks.It may be evidence in support of dragons but I could deny it by supposing an undiscovered large land predator with retractable claws. To the believers it seems very reasonable to take the dung and claw marks as evidence for dragons because they already believe in dragons while it is unreasonable for me because i'm dead set against dragons. Now if they say i'm biased by my hate It is entirely valid and sound to point out that they to are biased due to their love of dragons. suppose instead I say "dragons don't exist therefore I only hate a hypothetical being and therefore my hate dose not bias my view of reality". It is valid, if dragons don't exist then it is the case that my hate is hypothetical and hate of hypothetical things does not bias your view of reality if that thing is not real and I don't project that which I hate unto other beings, but it is not necessarily sound and can lead to circular reasoning. If dragons do exist then I am hating a real thing and my hate has lead me to dismiss evidence so my argument becomes effectively dragons don't exist so I deny evidence of dragons and I know their are no dragons because I have no evidence for them.

All this is to say I find this article is internally sound to an atheistic belief system but falls it apart if you have a different system of beliefs and those if you wish this article to rebuff theists it should be taken back to the drawing board.Jkevo (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Your example is a complete non sequitur. A better argument would be "I don't believe Voldemort exists, but even if he did, (because I'm humoring you, the person who thinks he does exist and is good) I would be opposed to him because he sounds like a morally bankrupt bastard." Doesn't really make the point you were going for though... Hmm... Oh well! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

What you call a non sequitur is as a matter of fact an allegory meant to shed light on a point. In your example if Voldemort doesn't exist I see no problem but if Voldemort does exist then you are merely being the equivalent of a nay-theist. If God doesn't exist then this article is internally consistent and proves it's point while if God dose exist this article serves only to demonstrate the theist point. If the point of this article is to refute the theist point it fails because it only takes into account atheistic systems of belief and only serves as an internal reinforcement of position for both sides rather than as a point to be argued. Jkevo (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that once again you've missed the point, even though I explained it, with my example, in the quote, with parentheses... As for "...while if God dose exist this article serves only to demonstrate the theist point., no it doesn't. Seriously, no it doesn't. Do you even know what the fuck you're talking about? If someone doesn't believe a fictional character exists, but hears a full enough description of that character, then says that don't belive the character exists, and that they're glad of that because he sounds like a piece of crap, how on earth is that inconsistent? Do you have a learning disability? I'm not trying to use that as an insult, I'm honestly asking. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I suppose you hate or at least highly dislike the idea of a hypothetical God and deny his existence. Now suppose you are wrong about the existence of God and he is indeed real. Then your hate of a hypothetical God could bias you against evidence and proofs of his existence on purely emotional grounds. The whole article is supposed to be a defense against the theist accusation that some atheists are so purely on emotional grounds more specifically because of hate of God. But the defense boils down to:

1. God doesn't exist

2. If god doesn't exist then my hate of God can not bias my perception of evidence of his existence

T. I am not biased due to hate of God

3. If I am not biased then the lack of evidence for God is evidence of no God

T. God doesn't exist

The defense is circular and those fallacious and the form is weak. I believe a better resolution of the accusation would be to merely except that some amount of atheistic belief is based on emotion and then turn it around and say so is some amount of theistic belief is based on emotion. As it stands the argument from only hating a hypothetical god comes off as special pleading and only serves to reinforce the theist idea that atheists are only in denial. If you feel I have misinterpreted the defense feel free to restructure it. Jkevo (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe Bigfoot exists because there is insufficient evidence for Bigfoot. Does this mean I hate Bigfoot?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bob M I think our friend here is trying to "both sides!" the issue. @Jkevo You've strawmanned my argument. I will once again explain this to you, this time as if you were a child.

God is a character in a book (the Bible).

Certain people believe God is not fictional.

There is no evidence that God exists outside of the work of fiction.

Therefor God is fictional.

Now, that is the argument for God not existing. Let us move on to the next argument, which I have divided for your convenience and ease of learning.

The character "God" described within the work of fiction seems like a villainous character that is hard to empathize with.

Such characters generate negative emotions from the audience, even though the characters themselves are mere fiction.

Therefor I feel negative emotions toward such a character.

Therefor, in conclusion, with all facts accounted for, I am glad this fictional character does not exist, and I "hate" them within the context of the work of fiction.

Hopefully now you understand this concept, and will be wiser for it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie The problem is you are taking "There is no evidence that God exists outside of the work of fiction" as a given when the argument is weather or not it is true. So your argument boils down to "I don't believe god exist so my dislike/hatred of god in a hypothetical sense can not color my beliefs about the existence of god" witch is patently a circular argument. Suppose it is the case that you are wrong and there exist good arguments for the existence of god. Is it not possible that your dislike/hatred of god in a hypothetical sense could cause you to dismiss evidence out of hand. Essentially are you immune to confirmation bias.Jkevo (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jkevo I feel like self-harm would be a better use of my time, because at least then when I cut my arm open I'd see progress in the action I'm taking. If conclusive evidence for the Abrahamic was presented and found to be true, yes I would re-evaluate my position. That hasn't happened in over two thousand years, and judges by the quality of most of the sorry ass attempts, that isn't going to happen. As such, God is a fictional character in a book, and I can and will hate him as a fictional character, because in the context of the book his a fucking murderous jackass. Thankfully he isn't real. Have I gotten that information through your rather thick skull yet? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I would also add that there is no form of argument that can establish the existence of any real thing a priori. We cannot prove elephants exist by talking about them. Even if we found His fingerprints on a nun's breast, or a photograph of Him leaving the Vatican, how would we know it was really Him? You can take a photo of a giraffe and compare it to a live giraffe at the zoo where there is a large sign that reads "Giraffe". This is one of the many problems that comes from being human. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 If you can't come to know the existence of any real thing a priori we can not come to know anything because we can only come to know of ourselves and our constituent parts a priori. To do otherwise would be to form a circular argument. further more we can come to know many mathematical and philosophical truths a priori and I would argue that both constitute real things. Given these knowable things then it does not seem unreasonable that one might postulate the further existence of necessary beings. For example some forms of the cosmological argument seeks to establish a priori the necessary existence of a being who has properties concurrent with the existence of god. It may be that after gathering information you are that necessary being but it does not diminish the fact that you came to the belief in such a being a priori.Jkevo (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie conclusive evidence in so far as there can be no doubt is unobtainable due to our nature as humans. We do not have direct access to all truth indeed we have direct access to very little information all things considered. All we have is evidence that we find to be compelling. I find that their is compiling philosophical and historical evidence for the existence of the christian God while you have evidence that you find compelling that lead you to the opposite opinion. Now let's suppose someone believes one of use came to our conclusion in a faulty way based off of bad evidence and that has caused us to unfairly dismiss counter evidence on the basis of emotional attachment or confirmation bias. The proper way to counter is not to say i'm right therefore any emotions I have are only over hypothetical realities therefore can not blind me to actual reality but instead is to provide evidence for why your evidence is compelling and why the oppositions evidence is not. I understand you find your evidence that God does not exist to be compelling and that you therefore you believe your dislike of god in hypothetical does not color your view of reality but there are many well educated and responsible people who believe otherwise. I find the argument's against the existence of God to be weak but maybe you could enlighten me or I enlighten you. This can not happen though if either side believes that the other can have no evidence which is what the argument on the main page does for your side. It declares that atheists came to and continue to come to their on purely or primarily rational grounds thus shunting off any possibility that atheists may be wrong.Jkevo (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jkevo DO YOU BELIEVE IN SLOVOK THE DEVOURER YES OR NO? WHY ARE YOU DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF SLOVOK THE DEVOURER!?!? That's what you sound like. You don't understand how evidence works at all, your proposed edits will be denied. Good day. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jkevo We know the world a posteriori. Anything not in the observable universe exists in our heads alone. You can believe as you wish. It is evidently not your lot in life to be able to convince others of the truth of your opinions in this matter.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 whether or not you exist is a fact about the observable universe yet if you are born not being able to gather any a posteriori information you can still know you exist. cogito, ergo sum. So are you ready to tell me that if you where born unable to interact with the outside world you would not exist? because other wise there is at a least one thing we can come to know about reality a priori. ^{— Unsigned, by: Jkevo / talk / contribs}

Yes. The fallacy in the Cartesian claim is very subtle but once you recognize it, you'll never forget: the body recognizing itself is recognizing evidence of a body in the world. The mind is an aspect of the body. The result is not wholly a priori but could better be described as nascent posterior knowledge. What the brain provides that makes a posteriori experience possible is formatting. e.g., the ability to learn a language is a priori, but is not in itself a form of knowledge, but represents an ability to acquire communicable knowledge. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 If cogito, ergo sum is a posteriori then their are no a priori claims that is all claims are based on a posteriori knowledge. Therefore philosophy is a posteriori knowledge thus one can know of necessary beings without any further input from the outside world. your point is still defeated. cogito, ergo sum, ergo demiurgus.Jkevo (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Your riposte is incoherent. " thus one can know of necessary beings without any further input from the outside world." is a conclusion that does not and cannot follow from any set of sound predicates. It is true we must assume the world really exists by rejecting solipsism. I would remind you that the word 'theory" was used by ancient Greek philosophers to mean something like "sightseeing". Philosophy is mostly, arguably in all cases, derived from experience. Sorry there fella.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Is or is not cogito, ergo sum a posteriori knowledge? If no then you can know of at least one being a priori. If yes then without further knowledge you can build logic from cogito, ergo sum thus logic is a posteriori knowledge because it's base is a posteriori knowledge. Now you have something that exists and logic which is all you need to form the cosmological argument. So it is either the case that we can come to know some amount of being a priori or knowing only cogito, ergo sum let's one come to know of the uncaused cause. witch ever is true you can come to know of beings outside of having direct a posteriori knowledge of them.Jkevo (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The Cosmological argument depends upon a fallacy: all things have a cause. But existence is not a thing. It is everything. See Russell's paradox. Let me share a quote about philosophy by the greatest mathematician of the 19th century and, I would say, of all time: "When a philosopher says something that is true then it is trivial. When he says something that is not trivial then it is false."--Carl Friedrich Gauss. I don't entirely agree with Gauss, though I suspect he was a better judge of real knowledge than me.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Your miss applying Russell's paradox. Everything is a set of all things. Everything is a thing therefore it is in its self. That makes the set recursive not paradoxical. As far as your Carl Friedrich Gauss quote goes I guess we are both speaking falsities then for we are both arguing non trivial philosophical points.Jkevo (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

That's OK. I didn't expect you to understand that paradox.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)