Atheists can Hate God

psychosavant Says:

I’ve heard it before, I’ve read it on this blog. Contrary to what many would say, even atheists, we can and some of us do, hate God. Anyone who says it is impossible for an atheist to hate God because they don’t believe he exists is not looking at things from the right perspective.

I’m an atheist, and I hate God. How is this possible you ask? Am I thus acknowledging the existence of God? The answer to this latter question is a resounding “No!”.

I hate God in much the same way I hate the Teletubbies, the Mighty Morphing Power Rangers, and DragonBallZ. I do not have to believe something is real to hate it. God to me, is as fictional a character as the rest of these, but I hate him the most.

However, this is not to say all atheists hate God. To each his (or her for the ladies) own. But it is not particularly impossible for anyone to have an emotional response, or to love or hate something, simply because they do not believe in it.


64 Responses to Atheists can Hate God

  1. The Atheist says:


    I certainly agree that an atheist can hate the delusion that a god or gods exist without believing that those gods actually exist. Also as you point out, I agree that atheists can even hate a particular portrayal of God in the same way that we can all hate Barney (the purple dinosaur). However, I feel it is more responsible not to equivocate the use of the phrase “hate God,” since it can too easily be understood (or misunderstood if you like) to mean either ‘hate the delusion or portrayal of a god’ or ‘hate God, the acknowledged creator’ – which of course would not be possible if one does not believe that there is a creator.

    Personally, I don’t hate god (because I don’t believe he exists) or even the portrayal or delusion except in certain extreme cases: I do hate the pompous and authoritarian manor in which the concept of God is can be presented by certain theists, and the dumbing down of society that inevitably results. I also hate the atrocities that are perpetrated in the name of God, whether by genuine believers or by charlatans who manipulate the masses in the name of God.

    • rebelconspiracy says:

      whats funny abiut u atheists if u hate something dont understand. u take stories uve heard stories of the bible (that most of yall get incorrect) like adam and eve ect and make rants that dont mk any sense but ull beleive in dinosaurs snd the big bang theory when uve never seen any of those. most of you think it is ignorant to beleive in god and jesus but i think its ignorant to hate or distrust something youve never tried to understand. and god does condone the slaughter of children but he does dictate our lives he gives us a choice beleive or dont thats it. its about conciquence. and by the way the big bang theory is such crap it its dosent follow its own princepals if everything came out of a big bang and microscopic lifeforms formed on seperate seperate rocks (planets) and began life through evolving then why do scientists always look for water on planets to see signs of life if evoulotion isw true wouldnt those lifeforms evolve to live on what their planet gives them? would a microorganism need a female to create if they spent years of evoultion creating itself? think about it

      • rebelconspiracy says:

        and by the way i meant god doesnt condone the slaughter of children and that he doesnt dictate our lives typos

      • Durzal says:

        Numbers 31:17-18 (King James Version)

        17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

        18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

        Think again!!!

        And in regards to atheists believing in dinosaurs and the big bang… try your local museum, are all the dinosaur bones a big conspiracy against you? did someone plant them?…. and the big bang that is to say that the universe is expanding from a singular hot and dense state is proven. Scientist can see by observing stars, that its also still expanding.(check an encyclopedia if you still doubt it)

      • Durzal says:

        And with regard to what you said about lifeforms forming with whatever the planet provides them, well i quite agree that there are probably non carbon based lifeforms out there,
        but because the only life forms that have formed on earth are carbon based(ie carbon bonded with other elemnet like hydrogen,oxygen and nitrogen) this is what scientist search for when looking for life as its much more likely to be identified as life. (btw carbon based life forms need water hydrogen+oxygen so thats why they look for water)

        Its all rather simply if you thing about it with an objective eye.

  2. Damian says:

    I can’t say that I hate “God”. I hate the idea of a god who demands children be slaughtered and who creates humans knowing that they will sin and then punish them eternally for it. I like the idea of a god who loves us, protects us and punishes people who commit atrocities.

    But I also love the idea of a magical unicorn who taps on my window with her sparkly horn and gives me millions of dollars and I hate the idea of a magical unicorn who tramples me to death.

    I can’t bring myself to hate or love an actual magical unicorn who I don’t believe in however.

  3. makarios says:

    “who creates humans knowing that they will sin and then punish them eternally for it.”

    How come it’s never, “who creates humans knowing that they will sin and then will forgive them for that sin and pay the debt of that sin at His own person cost?

  4. Damian says:

    I hate the idea of a god who creates humans and places a tree of knowledge which he forbids them from eating from knowing in advance that they will succumb to temptation and then punish them eternally. Who holds people accountable for the sins of their ancestors. Who performs a personal-sacrificial ritual which is only effective for those who believe without good evidence and who will continue to eternally punish any who don’t, even though he knew right back at the start that they wouldn’t. A god who could choose to just obliterate a person from existence but who thinks it better to keep them suffering eternally.

    Of course, there are many, many difference ideas of god and that is a description of just one of them. Your idea may be one who doesn’t really send people to hell or one who saves everyone regardless of their beliefs (I quite like that particular god concept).

    The point is that I don’t believe in such concepts and so struggle to hate them as if they were real gods. Liking or hating a concept doesn’t make it any more or less real. (Hence the magical unicorn example).

  5. Xela777 says:

    Nice one makarios! :D

    I hate the idea of a god who demands children be slaughtered and who creates humans knowing that they will sin and then punish them eternally for it. I like the idea of a god who loves us, protects us and punishes people who commit atrocities.

    Ok, so God loves me, protects me, and punishes people who commit atrocities. What’s the problem?

  6. Damian says:

    Xela777, in that case I quite like the concept of the non-Biblical God you believe in. However, and this is the point I’ve been repeating, because I don’t believe this to be anything more than an imaginary concept it can only be the concept itself that I love or hate. I neither love nor hate God with a capital “G”.

  7. xela777 says:

    Obviously I was going to ask you how this is unbiblical.

    How’s this unbiblical?

  8. Damian says:

    1 Samuel 15:2-3

    Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’

    The God described in the Bible demands that children and infants be killed and so I really don’t like the concept of this kind of god. I thought you were saying your concept of god was identical to one of the non-Biblical concepts I identified previously who doesn’t dig the whole child-killing business.

    What’s your favourite concept of a magical unicorn?

  9. mcoville says:

    God does not “dig” the whole child killing “thing”, but you would not understand the explanation if I gave it to you so continue to argue against your straw man.

    Happy Atheist’s Day, 4/1.

  10. The Atheist says:

    Hello, mcoville

    How come it’s never, “who creates humans knowing that they will sin and then will forgive them for that sin and pay the debt of that sin at His own person cost?

    Actually, that sounds nearly as bad to me (and just as bad if you believe that not everyone ends up being forgiven). For example, how do you feel about those people who God created, knowing that they would not believe in him, and would as a result of his creating them that way, end up in eternal torment?

    God does not “dig” the whole child killing “thing”, but you would not understand the explanation if I gave it to you

    I realize that you are probably much more erudite than we are, but we’ll try really really hard to understand.

    so continue to argue against your straw man.

    I know this comment was directed toward Damian, but looking over Damian’s posts, I was unable to find where he’s set up a straw man argument. Would you be kind enough to point out where he did? Thanks!

  11. mcoville says:

    This is taken from an email I received from a friend on this type of subject. The question he was answering was about the contradiction of the commandment to not kill and then giving the order to kill the Midianites. The answers goes to the sovereignty of God. This will give you some insight to why it is ok for God to remove the blessing of life from anyone at anytime.

    “Exodus 20:13 reads “you shall not murder”. First, we must distinguish
    (as the Bible does) between “murder” and other types of killing (e.g.
    accidental homicide, justifiable homicide, warfare, capital punishment).
    Murder, in the Biblical sense refers to the unjust taking of a human

    Second, we must also note (a) who commands and (b) to whom is it
    commanded. In Exodus 20:13 God is the commander and humans (“you”) are
    the commanded.

    To summarize, God tells people that they must not take a human life
    unjustly. Now, this assumes that God determines who can kill and for
    what reason. God Himself is the standard of justice, He decides what is
    just or unjust. In other words, if God commands a killing (such as the
    Midianites); it is not an unjust killing.

    The bottom line is: God is the Creator and the judge. It is never unjust
    for Him to kill humans or to command others to kill humans. In fact,
    justice would be for God to kill all humans. It is only God’s kindness
    that allows any human to live at all. If God decides to punish the
    Midianites, (who were not paragons of virtue) by killing them; He is
    perfectly just. It does not matter if He uses disease,famine,
    earthquakes, old age, or the Israelites as an instrument to carry out
    His justice.

    There is no logical contradiction, rather there is an emotional/
    spiritual rejection of God’s right to be God.”

  12. Damian says:

    God is the Creator and the judge. It is never unjust
    for Him to kill humans or to command others to kill humans.

    If your God clearly commanded you to kill the infant next door would you obey him?

  13. Xela777 says:

    The God described in the Bible demands that children and infants be killed and so I really don’t like the concept of this kind of god. I thought you were saying your concept of god was identical to one of the non-Biblical concepts I identified previously who doesn’t dig the whole child-killing business.

    What’s your favourite concept of a magical unicorn?

    I would kill the children of CHILD-sacrificing society too. I’m not going too let that crap go throughout the world.

    Mmm, for the unicorn, I think I like how they were actually kind of violent. When necessary of course.

    Ya, if I was absolutely 100% sure that God told me to kill the infant next door, and I MEAN 100%, yes, I would. I’d ask for a reason first of course…
    Course, I can’t imagine any way that I would be sure 100%…
    I’d need a reason first. And He’d give a good one, so shush.

    Here are some key words for your next post:
    heartless, evil, not (loving), disgusting,

    • Durzal says:

      Im sure many religious nutter like yourself have heard voices in there head and gone and killed that child next door….If I (an Athiest) heard such voices i would seek medical attention
      …hallelujah another child saved

      • Xela777 says:

        If that was sarcasm it benefits this conversation in only comic relief for atheists.
        If you were serious I would like to know what news stations you are watching.
        Oh, those people. They hear voices, but have little recorded religious activity.

      • Durzal says:

        It was sarcasm but it also made a valid point, that being, that our friend above would kill a child if the voices in his head were convincing enough…… whereas an athiest wouldnt because he would recognise the voices in his head as errr…. voices in his head… and get himself some help

      • Durzal says:

        Omg i just realised you are the guy above.

        Has god ordered any hits lately?

      • Xela777 says:

        We never hear voices in our head from God, it’s always a feeling. Sometimes we get random feelings, which provoke us to do things. These feelings sometimes need to be judged against the Bible, depending on their seriousness. It’s never an audible voice.

        What did you get your name from, Durza?

      • Durzal says:

        Feelings,visions,voices whatever… would you rape, beat.. then kill the child next door, if they told you too?
        You could scream “God wills it” or Allah Akbar=(God is Great) as you violate the child, it would seem fitting as this is what many theists do as they kill in Gods name.
        If you ever get these “feelings” in the future before you run into next doors nursery wielding a meat cleaver with your pants around your ankles screaming about god ..STOP..
        and consider this, if god who supposedly created us all and is all powerful wanted this defenceless child dead couldn’t he do it himself? And perhaps in a more subtle way that wouldnt end with you serving a lengthy prison sentence.

        (and yep got it from Durza/ Eragon..Great book isnt it)

    • Xela777 says:

      Never in history has there been any record of at least the Christian God to rape anyone, so we can judge that one pretty fast.
      If you’re going to use Islam or the crusades to say that theists justify killing, that’s pretty lame. It’s like saying people who don’t want monarchies justify killing. (French Revolution)
      I could yell “in God’s name!”, but I’d still be punished. God tells us to do stuff to test us, of course. I guarantee you that God is not going to tell me to kill any children.

      How do I run into a nursery with my pants around my ankles?

      • Durzal says:

        The crusades are a good example of the christain religion killing/raping in gods name. The french revolution was about revolting against opression and the unequality of the regime…its wasnt about justifying murder because some people didnt like the monarchy>.<

        and in regard to you saying your god doesnt condone rape:~
        Numbers 31:17-18 (KJV)
        17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
        18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

        Deuteronomy 20:14 (King James Version)
        14But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

        This was from your own bible and there were plenty of other examples i could have used ..start thinking my friend

        p.s. Carfully (in response to your last question)

    • Xela777 says:

      I wasn’t talking about the point of the two events, the point is, MURDER WAS CONDONED. It was justified.
      Where does this say rape? Nowhere! It says “keep the women for yourselves”.
      Or is the only thing you can possibly understand from that is rape? There are slaves you know, serving a max of 7 years. Why does it have to be rape with you? Is there something absolutely ridiculous with the idea of slavery? Is such a suggestion preposterous? Did this ever occur to you, or did you just run in with rape?
      You can pull ANYTHING out of that book and I will tell you why it still makes sense. I have thought the whole thing through and through, and I still have two questions for atheists, the “amino acids” and the “evolution can’t explain life” posts.
      Now can you stop wasting my and your time trying to convince me I’m wrong because of “numerous” “errors” in my Bible, and start explaining how you guys could possibly be RIGHT?

      • Durzal says:

        The crusades and french revolution are completely different one was fighting against opression, the other (the crusades) was to take the holy land from the muslims because they didnt believe as the christians did. (i hope you see the difference)

        It doesnt have to be rape with me but why would it matter if they where virgins or not if they where going to be slaves(try reading it again).
        Besides even if the bible was talking about slavery, how does this make it any better?

        Atheists dont claim to know the origins of the first amino acids ,though there are plenty of credible theories, but just because we dont know, thats no reason to invent fairy’s and leprechauns to explain it away(that would be stupid)

        Evolution is both a fact and theory the theory is how it happens…the fact that it does happen is however proven.
        (check an encyclopedia)

        Atheists dont claim there isnt a god they just say they dont believe there is, as there is no evidence
        ….like i could say my socks talk to me but without any evidence, it means f all

      • Durzal says:

        In case you dont have a new encyclopedia to hand this online one explains it very well.
        (the first 2 paragraphs is all you really need to read)

    • Xela777 says:

      I’m don’t care about what the crusades/revolution were for, yes, dang it the Christians were bastards back then, the point is, KILLING WAS JUSTIFIED. People should be left safe, no matter their beliefs. (Unless their killing people)

      When you conquer a society, you kill all the women who have slept with the men, whom you’ve killed. “Purging” the society from the earth. Greeks did this.

      Making it slavery instead of rape doesn’t make it better?
      What are you supposed to do with people? Leave them there? That would be letting the country survive. Slavery is only allowed up to 7 years, after which the individual can decide their future on their own. Now are you going to show what utter nonsense God is by saying how mean He might be by possibly condoning slavery?

      Just because we don’t know how amino acids linked together isn’t a very good reason to say “they all randomly linked together” (that would be stupid, and doesn’t really explain it)

      Both a fact AND a theory? Something cannot be both. Theories are unproven ideas. Like, the THEORY OF CREATION. Not proven, but used to explain life, like your big bang. Check your dictionary, I’ve been through enough biology classes.
      We can easily test the idea of your socks talking to you by stationing listening posts around your feet.

      You’re going to say atheism is awesome by using fossils? Fossils make you guys look stupid, too many missing links (oh, no, leave us alone, we’ll find them, we swears!) Oh, ok, fine, forget that then.
      We have our archeological dig sites, like, ancient Jericho, with the walls found lying outwards, and the ancient civilizations that you guys for so long ridiculed us about. Did we plant THOSE?

      An encyclopedia doesn’t help, it only tells me what “happened”, not how. Can you stop telling me to “try” all this crap that tells me nothing?

      You tell us we’re insane for thinking that’s how amino acids formed, and then offer no solutions. Can you please FURTHER the scientific community instead of stifling your opponents?

      • Durzal says:

        “Killing was justified” ..why
        because everybody was doing it?
        As you said “the christians were bastards back then”, why then would God condone their actions? and why cant you admit that this stuff in the bible is sick and ungodlike?

        The British Empire at its peak held sway over one-quarter of the worlds population, yet they did this all without killing all the women who had slept with a man.
        You dont need to slaughter women and chrildren to conquer a soceity or to change its regime.
        The fact that the greeks did it is besides the point, the point is it wasn’t necessary and not something a just or fair God would condone.

        Slavery is just as bad as rape, perhaps worse as as a slave you dont exactly have the right to say no.
        Today civilised nations look back on slavery with disgust, surely if we as human beings can see that slavery is wrong then an all knowing God wouldn’t have condoned it either. (or did God just get it wrong)

        Again you assume things based on rediculous theist propaganda you’ve been exposed too, No athiest/evolutionist say that “they all randomly linked together” that would be stupid as you say.
        What we do say is that we dont currently know, although there are many credible theories.
        The fact that we are still working on certain aspects doesn’t mean that we should ignore all the evidence we do have, as that would be as stupid as believing something explaining creation that provides no evidence.

        The fact that evolution happens is proven and can be seen happening, the theory is HOW it happens…i can’t make this any clearer.
        Just like the general theory of relativity trys to explain how and why gravity occours doesnt mean we doubt that gravity happens.
        Here is the link it this time (its not long)

        If you managed to record my socks talking to me that would be EVIDENCE!!
        If you can provide(credible)evidence that a God exists then it would mean something….you cant however, so why should anyone take it seriously.

        Fossils are very rare so of course there are gaps, are you going to continue to ignore this huge array of evidence until they have a fossil for every year of every species evolution. You demand a great deal from science before you’ll listen but you expect no evidence from religion to believe… why?

        I dont doubt your archeological dig sites but what evidence do they provide that there is a God? The bible talks about many places that did and still do exist, this isnt evidence that a God exists, so why bring it up?

        I posted a link to an encyclopedia as encyclopedias by there very nature are unbiased information sources, they dont give an opinion on the subject, just the facts.
        Ive explained and corrected your misconceptions about evolution as best i could in many different threads, if you still have any questions about particular areas of evolution i will be happy to oblige.

        Nobodies saying your insane, just ill informed and clutching at anything that will provide easy answers.
        No, science doesn’t provide all the solutions and answers to lifes questions and its never claimed too, but an easy solution like “God” that is based on no evidence isnt really a solution at all.

  14. The Atheist says:


    How curious! After accusing Damian in your earlier response of setting up a straw man argument (by the way, I’m still hoping you will point out where he did that), you proceed in your very next post to set up a bona fide straw man of your own: that “There is no logical contradiction” that God is cruel to some people. :)) The discussion is about the possibility of hating a god that does not exists vs. hating certain portrayals of God, it is not about any logical contradictions vis-a-vis God’s commanding us not to murder and then committing his own murderous acts.

    Acts can be cruel, even when the cruel actor has the authority to perpetrate his evil deeds. For example, in 894 bce, the Chinese Emperor, Muh, boiled the Prince of Ts’i alive. As Emperor, Muh had complete sovereignty in China, and what he did was lawful simply because he was the Emperor. Though Muh had the authority to boil someone to death, do you believe that such a cruel act was justified by his position of authority? If you don’t, then we agree that sovereignty does not justify cruelty. Then similarly, saying that God is sovereign is not a justification for his cruelty.

    Of course, as someone who does not believe that God exists, I also don’t believe that he commits any acts, cruel of otherwise. However, I do believe that his faithful followers exist, and I believe that they commit (or condone) cruel acts in his name.

  15. anonymous says:

    from reviewing your website you seemed consumed with hate. It must be an awful burden to carry.

  16. The Atheist says:

    Hi, anonymous,

    Your name and comment looks like a “post-n-run”, but I’ll respond just the same in hopes that you are amenable to a discussion. I’m curious: what have I posted that would cause you to believe that I’m consumed with hate?

  17. xela777 says:

    “Post-n-run”s ARE a little annoying…

  18. lisabee says:

    Most of the problems described here has to do with the morality of society–not the plausibility of whether or not there is a God.

    The Majority of Religion ‘killing people/children’ over the last 2000 years, has to do with those in power remaining in power–these ‘ungodly’ atrocities have been in the name of religion–but that does not mean God condone it–there is a judgment day for those who perpetuated these atrocities.

    Durzal–you continue with ‘killing the child next door’. In my opinion this is exactly what abortion is all about–and an ex-ultrasound technologist I can assure that a heartbeat of a fetus is seen on ultrasound at 6 weeks gestation, and the fetus is completely formed by 3 months gestation. Just because this fetus cannot survive (until now 6 months) outside the womb–does not make it ‘righteous’ so~although society deems it so. The same goes for the Roman and Spanish Inquisitions–just because those in power deemed it righteous–in the eyes of God -does not make righteous. There is a coming judgment for these atrocities.

    • Durzal says:

      Well i agree with most of what you said,
      that being, that many theist do terrible things in the name of god and that no god worthy of that title would condone such things. (this is what most atheists believe)

      With regard to the abortion thing, i would say that just because a fetus has a heart beat that doesn’t make it alive, what constitutes life is a tricky question but i would imagine that it would have more to do with brain function than whether an organ like the heart is pumping. I would say however that ive got no problem with decreasing the time period when your allowed to get an abortion, ive heard about alot of late abortions when the fetus would be rather developed for me to agree with it.

  19. lisabee says:

    Durzal says:

    with regard to the abortion thing, i would say that just because a fetus has a heart beat that doesn’t make it alive, what constitutes life is a tricky question but i would imagine that it would have more to do with brain function than whether an organ life the heart is pumping.

    Yes, it very much is a ‘tricky’ question in that the beating heart is on ultrasound is nothing more than a flickering pixel light. There will always be the possibility that the brain exists and is overshadowed by the light. I believe with with technology being improved on a rapid scale-will prove me correct one day.
    As far as pain–when the transducers hits the abdominal wall-any fetus will move (up until 6 moves-not much room after that) to the other side or as far away from the ‘sound’ as possible. This is an indication of pain/fear of the high pitch sound of the ‘wave’ Whether it is the case of pain or fear–this is still an indication of intelligent life.

    • Durzal says:

      Fear certainly would be an indication of life in my eyes as it would involve higher brain function than mere reflexes, especially if the fetus was actively moveing to avoid the source of its fear, but avoiding pain is something most organisms do by reflex so it isnt so persuasive.

      But abortion isnt some atheist ideology, i imagine plenty of atheist disagree with it, i myself believe they should decrease the maximum allowed time period so that there is no doubt that all that is being destroyed is lifeless material.(i dont hold with the view that the fetus is life on conception however)

  20. The Atheist says:

    Hi, Durzal. Welcome to the blog! I don’t have much to add; I agree with what you’ve said here.

    Having missed much of the recent discussion until reading it through just now (I was on vacation and had limited internet connectivity), I was amused at the readiness to toss out red herrings as a gambit to “win” an argument (or at least to deflect it) – rather than a more honest, head-on approach of either conceding a particular point, or countering it with other reasonable points.

    I hope to see some honest responses to your point about God’s (and theists’) violent acts against the helpless, whether the response takes the form of concessions, or whether it takes the form of valid counterpoints. It’s hard for me to view the intentional use of red herrings as anything other than a “concession without integrity”.

    Xella777 – it doesn’t matter if you hear a voice or have a feeling, as long as you believe that the commandment to kill a helpless victim is from God and you are willing to obey the command. It doesn’t matter if you admit that God commands to kill all men and non-virgin women, then rape virgins, or if He commands to kill all men and non-virgin women, then enslaves the virgins – you are still admitting that God commands cruel acts.

    lisabee – the issue of God commanding a believer to kill the child next door is not the same issue as abortion (even if we had compelling reason to accept that life begins at conception). The issue at hand is that God commands the cruelty.

    • Xela777 says:

      God has never commanded me to do such (kill innocents), and I guarantee He never will. These people in the OT were warlike nations, up for sacrificing children. Killing the children of these nations ensures it won’t spread.

      Bomb Hiroshima or not?

  21. Durzal says:

    “Killing the children of these nations ensures it wont spread”

    >.< WOW..What a powerful insight into your religion.

    Lets assume for a moment that i agree that these nations deserved to be destroyed(which i dont) surely them being warlike nations is the fault of the adults, why then kill the children(innocents)..
    Where they just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    "Ensures it wont spread" why would it, unless you believe that these chrildren are inherantly evil, but if thats the case why would god create evil chrildren? for fun? someone perhaps for the christians to kill?

    Hiroshima saved lives (in the long run)
    If not for dropping the bomb the US would have had to invade japan which would have involved large scale urban fighting which is notoriously costly in terms of lives especially if your opponent fights to the death. Be asured however that if they could have avoided killing the chrildren im sure they would have but unfortunately they didnt have a choice…unlike the christains we are talking about.

    Its not betraying your faith to acknowledge that some real nasty stuff has been done in gods name.
    (Unless you take the bible as the actual written word of god, then he has some serious explaining to do)

    • LordXela777 says:

      Yes, I announce to you a truth that killing people who believe in an idea stops the spread of the idea. That does not mean I believe it. You know the cure to all the world’s problems, racism, hunger, and disease? Nuclear warfare. Do I have to explain in no way am I endorsing it?

      I’m, fairly certain they would’ve wanted to save the children. Why do you feel a need to tell me this?
      Why would evil spread? Because it does! Give me a place where it doesn’t. You aren’t supposed to hang around the wrong crowd, unless you CONSTANSTLY have your guard up, you’ll eventually turn like them! (smoke, drugs, drink, rape)

      Thanks for your reassurance that I’m not betraying my faith. Yes, God wrote the ideas conveyed in the Bible, (most stories are literal), ask a question, that’s what this forum is for. I dare you, post something up there.

  22. lisabee says:

    the issue at hand is that God commands cruelty.

    The issue at hand is “hatred for God”. If you hatred of God is because he is fictional (as teletubbies) then you hate the fictional stories of the Bible–they are not real and never happened-just as the stories of the three little pigs.

    If you your hatred of God is because “God commands cruelty” then you are admitting to his existence.

  23. durzal says:

    Your first paragraph seems to be acknowledging that the bible say’s some terrible stuff and that you dont necessarily agree with what it says on theses issues, this i applaud.

    I do have to point out though that if you wanted to stop the spread of a certain nations ideas you dont have to massacre its children, as kids are not born with some sort of genetic memory of what their parents believed.
    (and even adults can convert…unless you kill them)

    With regard to “evil spreading” why do you think these chrildren were evil? they where kids surely you dont think these kids where born evil,
    did they deserve to be killed because of the “ideas” that there parents held.

    And finally you say God wrote the ideas conveyed in the bible, im assuming you mean he inspired moses and moses wrote them down.(lets hope moses managed to interpret the words of a god accurately or there could be some real ungodly stuff in there…ohh wait)

    And whats this (MOST stories are literal) supposed to mean?
    Are we to take it that some parts of the bible arent meant to be taken literally, but some other bits are? Who the hell decides which bits are literal and what bits are fiction, you? ..

    If some parts of the bible aren’t to be taken literally then whos to say that genesis is to be taken literally?

  24. LordXela777 says:

    I’m aware that you might not be responding to me, but you said:
    Your first paragraph seems to be acknowledging that the bible say’s some terrible stuff and that you dont necessarily agree with what it says on theses issues, this i applaud.

    What was your reading comprehension in school?

    I think man is inherently evil.

    Who’s to say literal or not? Such as, half of Revelation is figurative, some stuff in Ezekiel, most prophecy books. The Hebrew language scholars say Genesis is literal, because it’s not in a “poetic grammar style”, like Psalms, parts of Ezekiel.

    • durzal says:

      Yes i announce to you a truth that killing people who believe in an idea stops the spread of an idea. That does not mean i believe it.

      Isnt this you implying that killing the ppl got the job done but you dont agree with it?

      You meantioned nuclear war being the cure of all ills and said you dont endorse that either, so i took this to mean you dont endorse the atrocities committed in the bible either

      If not, i dont think its my comprehension but more your inability to convey your meaning.

      “i think man is inherently evil”
      if this is your reasoning to justify the massacring of chrildren in the bible then why dont you kill yourself and every child you see as this means we are all evil and deserve to die.

      So you acknowledge that large parts of the bible are just stories(not literal) and should be treated as such and that humans(scholars) are the ones who decide what is what…
      what if they got it wrong..its a possibility isnt it? after all man is fallible and just because its not written poeticly(genesis i mean) doesnt necessarily mean its to be taken any more seriously than the rest.

      Beside moses was just a man(fallible) who was interpreting gods word when he wrote genesis(unless you think god told him what to write word for word)
      and its been recopied and altered for the past 2000 years by men(fallible)
      as well as translated from language to language which always causes wording problems,
      so isnt it even remotely possible that some of the more unlikely stuff of genesis isnt 100% true.

      Come on, conceed its possible.. and you’ll garner some genuine respect from me.

  25. LordXela777 says:

    I agree with it in some cases.

    Right, nuking a civilization’s economy, innocents, (not wanting to fight us) and morale to stop a war from possibly saving the world (I’m speaking of Japan) is DEEPLY comparable to laying waste to several cities of moraless societies in order to stop corruption and raiding. Currently nuking them wouldn’t be a course of action either, the people who are the problem aren’t necessarily against us, there’s no reason to kill them. (Not enough that is) I see no way you made the connection, unless you link the two above acts as evil as the other.

    Man is inherently evil. It is my reason for justifying children UNDER the command of God (not because THEY said so, but I believe GOD said so) who have been raised in a violent and moraless society. We do all deserve to die. It’s just that I’m not the executioner.

    I in no intelligent way implied that I thought a large part of the Bible is wrong. I gave you two out of the 66 books of the Bible that are FIGURATIVE (that does not mean they are wrong, it means they are figurative. It’s like Lord of the Flies. Is that wrong?), how does this mean that out of the other 64 and a half books, most of them are wrong? If something is written as an historical document, in the same speech and word choice as their RECORDS (birthdates, marriages, taxes, such) then at least I will treat it as such.

    If I told you words, and wrote them all down as I said them, I then proofread and checked it all and said “ok”, do you think there would be an error in what you copied?

    The oldes,t copy of Genesis is the sa?me as the newest copy except p,lacements of grammar, tools but that doe’snt confuse you about the meaning of my sentence at all does it

    The language is solved by concordances, and if you don’t know what those are, ask.

    Why do I need respect from you? I need to lower my life standars and beliefs for respect from you? I looked to see if they’re were mistakes in the Bible, and I thought about miscopied words. But people assure me the only problem is punctuation. All you non-believers do is tell me that somehow the Easter accounts of Matthew and Luke conflict.

    • Durzal says:

      I think the difference is our two biased opinions on your religions actions….whereas you see spreading your belief system as just as good as stoping the 2nd world war i see it as imposing your beliefs system on others who should have the right to believe as they wish.
      I know you feel these ppl where animals and barbarians but history is written by the victors.

      I imagine the reason you believe we all deserve to die is because of original sin etc whereas i dont believe im responsible for the actions of my ancestors and i dont believe a fair or just god would think this either.

      Lord of the flies was figurative just like much of the bible and i dont take them literally.
      My point was, that as much of the bible is written in a figurative way it doesnt mean, that that which isnt is meant to be taken as cold hard fact.

      I take from this that you believe god did tell moses what to write word for word and also that he checked it afterwards, is this what it says in the bible?

      The point is are the oldest copies of genesis they same as the scripture moses wrote. There where no printing presses back in those days so scripture was copied by scribes who would copy the text as they interpreted it and not always word for word, the same for the languages whereas there is 1 word for snow in english in eskaleut there are a great deal to describe diferent the meaning of a sentence could be misinterpreted due to a inability to convey a words true meaning.

      These people who assure you that the only problem is punctuation.. would they be chritians too?
      just an example i got off the net…
      In the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament, The sea Moses “parted” was Yam Suf. Yam Suf, however, is not the Red Sea. In actual translation, it means “Sea of Reeds”, a small lagoon that has now dried up.

      I still feel the need to point out that im not trying to disprove God here, im just pointing out that its not wise to take the bible so literally especiallly when it flies in the face of things we have alot more evidence for.

  26. Xela777 says:

    Wait, are you assuming that I think the Spanish “conversion” of the Indian Americans was good? I severely disagree with their methods, in fact, if I could, I would fight the Spanish, kill them all, and I would I think be justified. No one should be forced into a religion (I don’t think the Americans were saved either), but if you’re going to say me telling you the gospel message and pleading that you believe it is forcing you to accept it, you have some pretty weak willpower. I’m assuming you don’t, I’m guessing you think I approve of the Spanish. I’m libertarian, you don’t force anyone to do anything, unless it is evil.

    If given eternity to do something, everything will happen if it has a chance. (you’d sin) Do you disagree with that?

    The point of Lord of the Flies is that kids have a sin nature, man is inherently evil. If you disagree with me, all I can do is give you articles and newspaper stories to try to convince you, and that’s it. Still your opinion, I hope you don’t see me as forcing you to accept mine.

    It doesn’t say this in the Bible, it’s from Jewish history. Even if Moses didn’t write it, does that affect my religion’s message? We can’t test whether or not God did dictate the Bible, but we can’t test this. I’ll argue it’s probable, there’s no mistake in it, but ultimately this point cannot be proven.

    The concordance solves your problem of scribes and words.

    Some are Christian, some aren’t. Not only Christians bother to study it. This example you got of the net, might they be anti-Christian?
    Give me the hyperlink. Here’s mine. And it says nothing of it being a “small” lagoon. And there’s two lagoon options, if the Red Sea is not correct.
    Oh, and I’ll point out I concede on the point on it might be something other than the Red Sea. I feel like you complain a lot of that, so I felt like pointing it out.

    More evidence for? Do you see any error with my Bible? I see errors with your theory. Have you heard of Pascal’s Wager?

  27. Durzal says:

    “you dont force anyone to do anything, unless its evil”
    The point is that religions can decide what they think is evil… and then convince otherwise good people to commit atrocities.
    Hence stories of people massacring (evil)chrildren in the bible.

    No, as an atheist im not capable of sinning as i dont belive in a god…but i am capable of making mistakes and acting incorrectly/badly.

    The point of the lord of the flies was not that people/kids are inherently sinners but that left alone chrildren will do stupid things like believe in monsters in caves and persecute/attack/kill those who dont believe as the group does. (sounds familair)

    I have no problem with religions taking meaning from their holy books.
    but why, if you can concede that you cant prove that God dictated the bible do you defend the atrocities commited in it, as they are not necessarily gods true word or meaning.
    Cant the divinity be in its meaning and not in some of its more ugly, apparently man inspired, verses.

    I dont think theres such a thing as a anti-christian just those who dont believe in a god.
    I have no interest in further looking for mistranslations in the bible but as you have again conceded “it may be something other than the red sea”
    so if words can be mistarnslated you cant really rely on the bible being exactly 100% identical to how its was first written which is the point i was trying to make in the first place.
    (it shouldnt be taken literally especially when it flies in the face of what we have alot more evidence for)

    Well the errors you see with the theory (as we have seen more than once) are usually down to your lack of understanding of the theory.
    I see mistranslations like the one above that you conceded to, as errors.

    Pascals Wager..I guess your refering to this
    Pascal’s Wager (or Pascal’s Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through REASON(lol), a person should “wager” as though God exists, because so living has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

    Your kidding…. so i should believe something that makes no sense to me, has no evidence, and cant be explained through reason, just in case its real and i go to its hell….is this why you believe!

    This reasoning is retarded.. at best
    Perhaps you should convert to islam in case you go to islamic hell(Jahannam)

    It doesnt surprise me that this guy was french.

    • LordXela777 says:

      Goodness gracious, again with genocide against a child-sacrificing race. I have nothing else to say about this, other than God deemed it fitting to get rid of them, hence stopping child-sacrifice, at the cost of kids, but ensuring that it no longer happens. At least in that area…

      Right, the meaning is to get rid of those who commit atrocities. There’s a difference between an atrocity doer and a doer of atrocious things to rid of atrocity doers.

      Right, the word was mistranslated from Hebrew into English. So because someone doesn’t know their Hebrew, the Hebrew book is probably void now.

      Right. No, this means that it probably wasn’t the Red Sea (though I still think it was), it could’ve been a lake. This doesn’t change my life in the least. Go find a word that is of actual importance, like a mistranslation of “love”, or “hate” or “do not”. There are some ideas that mainstream Christians believe, like don’t use the phrase “Oh my God”, because that’s taking God’s name in vain, via 10 commandments. The sad thing is, God’s name isn’t “God”, god is a term for a supernatural being who controls either an element or the universe. Saying Oh my God is not in confliction with this “commandment”. Just because people cannot intrepret it correctly doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Mistranslation is not an error on the native part, it is on the foreign. Are Mexicans stupid because you can’t understand them?

      That’s not why I believe, but I think it’s a logical excuse for you. Course, I don’t have your point of view, so I wouldn’t know.

      Well, if I was of Pascal’s wager, I wouldn’t want to do the Islam thing, because then my Christian heaven wouldn’t be covered. Pascal was a Christian before he came up with the wager, if I understand my sources right, he made it as a joke, but a logical joke.

      Course, if we find I misunderstood my sources, that makes my sources having an error, and they’re wrong.

      This french guy came up with key mathmatical principles. He also defended the scientific theory, AND was a theologion. You can’t (or, rather, shouldn’t) say they can’t go hand in hand.

  28. Durzal says:

    Again you have missed the point..God didnt decide to get rid of these (evil)children it was his supposed followers who decided that these children where evil and decided to wipe them out.
    The christian religion(not God) claimed than the muslims in jerusalem where beasts and evil in order to justify invading the holy land.. it doesnt mean they where and its the same for these supposed atrocity doers.

    In not suggesting that the hebrew book is void or that the bible is to be ignored or that mexicans are stupid or that you should change your life in any way.
    The point is that as you have now agreed the bible can be interpreted incorrectly therefore it is just plain stupid to use it to justify the murder of children or to refute things that we have a hell of alot more evidence for.

    Regarding Pascals Wager
    Your not going to convert to islam because you dont believe there dogma and no amount of threats of death or hell would make you change you mind.
    Its the same for atheists.. no amount of
    “Your gonna go to hell” is going to make me ignore massive amounts of factual evidence to pretend to believe in something that has no evidence or credible reasoning to support it.

    And i agree that religion and science are not mutually exclusive many theists dont deny evolution and a scientific view of the universe, and no scientist or atheist would outright deny the possibility of a god type being.

  29. Xela777 says:

    Well, see, here we are. I think it was God’s judgement, and you think it was a political guise under religion. And round goes the merry…

    CRUSADES WERE WRONG! FLAT OUT WRONG! CRUSADES WERE UNJUSTIFIED! Well, to an extent. Course, we got some stories of Muslims killing Jews, so that’s partially why some went down there. Course, then they start killing God’s people…. ?
    All world views have their bad flaws, some humans always get in there who either don’t really believe it or who just don’t care. The atheist on is of Hitler’s superhumans, and don’t give me that bullshit that he was Catholic. He hated Catholicism. He had kids pray to him before God. Is that Catholic-like? He based superhumans off of evolutionary principles, which all atheists also believe. I’d like you to find me an atheist who has another theory…

    No matter how the hell I interpret that text, it means that some Hebrews killed some Assyrian kids, whether I interpret it that way or not. Just because some fallible humans can misinterpret it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t agree with the vast majority of other scholars who actually know their Hebrew. And this no longer justifies us killing children, Jesus changed a lot in town.

    You said you don’t think it’s void, but in the same paragraph state that it’s stupid to refute things you have “evidence” for and that it’s interpreted wrong. (?)

    Again with who has more evidence? C’mon dude, this never ends.

    (“Their” is the adjective, “there” is the adverb.)

    To me “going to hell” isn’t the dealmaker, it’s the “be with Jesus” part. I don’t blame you with the hell thing either, if I was atheist, I wouldn’t convert even if I knew God existed who threatens me. (Ok, I’m exaggerating a bit. I think. I don’t know. I would hate Him though, that’s for sure.)

    • Durzal says:

      Yes i do understand you stance on the crusades..i was just using them as an example of good people doing bad things at the urging of their religious leaders.

      Hitler wasn’t a practising catholic though he claimed to be in public statements.
      We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people.”[10] At one point he described his religious status: “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”[11]'s_religious_beliefs#Views_as_an_adult

      And he certainly believed in a god regardless of his denomination.
      Wikipedia (mein kampf quote)same link
      “What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race…so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe…Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence.”[15]

      Many theists claim hitler was a atheist
      ..there wrong.

      But it wouldnt really matter if he was a atheist as i can except that some people are just bad be it athiests or theists
      but the problem is when GOOD people are convinced to do crazy and terrible things in the name of God.
      The 9/11 hijackers could have been lovely people but committed that atrocity due to being brainwashed with twisted religious beliefs just like the crusades. (kill a saracen and you get straight into heaven)
      Without religion these things wouldnt happen and we would only have to worry about the people who are actually bad.

      I dont question the abilities of scholars to translate hebrew i just state that as you have agreed mistakes can happen when translating and especially over a 2000 year time period so i dont think its wise to take the bible as cold hard fact.
      I dont think the bible is void christian take great meaning from it and it has some good lesson for all of us.. but the problem comes when theists try to use it to refute that which we have proved or have vast amounts of evidence for.

      Regarding who has more evidence its quite simply …you have nothing that i would call evidence.
      The bible states how it thinks it happened and claims its right..this is not evidence.. no matter how closely it resembles what moses wrote.
      ID is just an assuption like saying i dont know where my socks keep going ..SOOO a leprechaun must be stealing them…simply

      Sorry for the crap grammar ..expect more as i cant be bother to check it all.

      Thank you for excepting my stance on pascals wager. The fact is im a product of my enviroment ive been raised in a home and country that just offer you the fact about religion and science and let you make your own choice and i found the scientific arguments more credible.
      If theres a God and he has plans to send me to hell for this then his not a very good God in my opinion as if he truely cared he would do a damnsight better providing answers.

      • Xela777 says:

        Well, I’m pretty satisfied with this topic(s), seems we’re at the middle point here, and of course neither side’s going to give.

        Course, I’m still going to toss in the comment that more good comes from religion than bad, and more bad from atheism than good.

  30. Durzal says:

    Well i would expect you to believe that religion does more good than harm and im not really interested in suggesting otherwise(unless you want me to) even if i dont agree with that view.
    However, i am a little surprised that you think atheism causes harm, would you mind explaining what bad in your opinion comes from atheism.

    • Xela777 says:

      I’ll say it allows a foothold for worse things, like the Holocaust (Hitler was Christian! Eugenetics is not a Christian practice. That requires at least some evolutionary philosophy. Atheism encourages the spread of this idea of evolution.)

      It seems strange to me that (unless I have a lack of information) that school shootings started AFTER evolution became the requirement.

      Now that I look at it I’m starting to think I hate atheism because it spreads evolution, which I think dehumanizes us (lol, that’s funny. But it makes us out to be animals) and it makes life to me rather pointless.

  31. Durzal says:

    Hitler claimed to be a catholic and whatever his denomination he believed in a God. (check the post above my last post for links)

    Eugenics is the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species by means of discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or inheritable undesirable traits.
    Hitler had beliefs that coinsided with the worst parts of Eugenics ie genocide to remove the presumed defects or undesirable traits of the jews, he did however believed in a God so eugenics is hardly a solely atheist ideaolgy.

    You seem to believe that being an atheist means you believe in a set dogma like a religion..this is wrong.
    Being an atheist means you dont believe in a God period,… it doesnt even mean you have to believe in evolution,.. most do however as there is little reason to doubt such huge amounts of evidence unless you follow a religion.

    Regarding the shootings in schools.
    The shootings in schools where about outcast kids being bullied and snapping, i fail to see how you connect this with evolution being taught in schools.
    Great Britain is 44% atheist and we are taught both belief systems in our schools and we dont have problems with kids shooting up schools mainly cos our coutry doesnt sell guns in the local ASDA (walmart)
    I’d also point out that soceity is different than it was 30 years ago, nowadays violence and gang culture are glamorised on tv and this is the reason kids are going around shooting each other not because they are educated about evolution.

    Evolution doesnt dehumanise us, it simply explains how humans became as we are. Just because we have evolved from baser forms doesnt mean we have to act like baser forms we are human and evolution doesnt change that.
    We are animals our species is called Homo sapien just because we have a greater intelligence doesnt mean we are divinly created.
    Life is rather pointless just like the life of an ant is rather pointless this doesnt mean we shouldnt live our lives and it doesnt mean we should invent things to make our lives seem more special.
    I accept that when i die i will cease to exist and i would rather face that grim reality than delude myself with wishful thinking about acending to heaven and living eternaly.

  32. BCJ says:

    ok, the main thing here is that as a believer in god (which i happen to be) should have none, i mean NO exceptions to saying that GOD would ORDER any killings or any atrosity towards another human being. I find it very sad having people say that its ok cuz god ordered it so therefore it is justified. As having any morals you should know that if you have to justify an act or give excuses for it happening it probably isn’t something that should ever happen.

    Yes i believe in a god, or a higher power and all of those that do should know that GOD is perfect, but i do think that the bible is wrong, or could have been changes as it was past down. but in trying to prove the point or justifing the bible makes you sound less and less intelegent.
    Man (who wrote the bible) makes errors

    • Xela777 says:

      How does me trying to defend the authenticity of the Bible make me sound less intelligent?

      Under no circumstance is God ever going to tell me to kill someone, He no longer speaks directly to us, but, since I think there’s authenticity, He has told us before.

  33. BCJ says:

    I also like the Moral viewpoints of people who do not believe in a god, yet still have morals because they believe it is right, and believe things are wrong, without having a fear of GOD, and that he will put them in hell if they do wrong. that is y i belive that overall they have a better moral foundation

    I wish that every person can do good in this life without seaking a good reward.

  34. Atheist here, also hates God!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: