Why do atheists hate God?
Editorial
Recently, I have had a lot of conversations with atheists. Many express a strong hatred of God. I have been at a loss to explain this. How can you hate someone you don’t believe in? Why the hostility? If God does not exist, shouldn’t atheists just relax and seek a good time before they become plant food? Why should it matter if people believe in God? Nothing matters if atheism is true.
Aldous Huxley (1894–1963), the brother of the atheistic evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley, advocated a drug-fuelled utopia. He gave the reason for his anti-Christian stance:
“I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning … the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.”1
Like Huxley, some people don’t like God because they don’t like moral constraints—you can make up your own rules, or have none at all, if God does not exist. They hate God and Christians because they are actually not confident that God does not exist and seeing Christians may remind them that they are ‘suppressing the truth’ (Romans 1:18).
What about atheists who had a church/religious upbringing? Some of them hate God because of evil things done to them by teachers in religious schools or by church leaders—people who on the face of it represented God. Antipathy towards God is an understandable reaction, sadly (although illogical).
Many complain about hell; they are angry at God because of hell. I understand that teachers in certain church-based schools, and parents in some ‘religious’ homes, commonly used the ‘fear of God’ to make children behave. “You are bad; you will burn in hell if you don’t behave.” But such a simplistic works-oriented approach not only trivializes this most serious of subjects, it negates the Gospel of God’s grace. (We are all ‘bad’ in God’s eyes, and ‘behaving properly’ will not save us—only Jesus can.)
A child who is having difficulties may well conclude that there is no way out for them, leading to years of nightmares about suffering in hell. Such a troubled teenager hearing an atheist say that evolution explains how we got here and that God is a myth2 could find this to be a liberating message, a release from their fears.
Creation magazine
Keep your family informed on the latest easy-to-understand evidences for creation and against evolution! This unique full-color family magazine gives God the glory, refutes evolution, and gives you the answers to defend your faith. Exciting articles and great witnessing material you won’t find anywhere else! Includes a beautifully illustrated full-color children’s section in every issue. Delivered to your home every three months! Subscribe now!
The Gospel (good news, see p. 41) is missing from all this. The Bible tells us that God is in the business of salvation. Though His wrath regarding sin is all too real (as seen in the Fall and Flood judgments; pp. 12–14, p. 15), we need not suffer it. Those who come to Him in repentance and faith will not be turned away (John 6:37). See also pp. 32–34.
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)
It is strange that people hate God, who loves so much.
Some atheists complain of Christian ‘intolerance’ in speaking about hell. But if those who spurn God’s forgiveness will suffer God’s wrath, shouldn’t we Christians be warning everyone about the danger and how they can be saved? How is that ‘intolerant’? It would be extremely unloving not to tell others of this. A gift of Creation magazine might be a good place to start.
Related Articles
Further Reading
Related Media
References
- Huxley, A., Ends and Means, 1937, pp. 270. Return to text.
- But evolution is the myth, as seen in this issue of Creation, pp. 16–17, 23, 35–37, 44, 46–48, 54–55, 56. Return to text.
Readers’ comments
I find this rather ironic: "You give no facts. You are completely opinionated" when you have provided no evidence for your assertions, which are nothing more than your opinions. There is plenty of evidence on creation.com, if you are open to evidence. There are over 8,000 articles and many videos to inform you of the evidence, if you are interested. For example, regarding your assertion that the Bible is "full of contradictions" (is it really reasonable therefore to "hate" it?), see Answering Bible skeptics.
With rape, I wonder if you have ever thought of the lack of justice of a world where there is no divine judgment awaiting rapists? That is the world of the atheist; the rapist gets away with it.
I also wonder if you have considered what a world would be like where you were forced like a puppet on a string to 'behave'? For what you want God to do for the rapist He should also do to you because you are not without fault either (none of us are).
As for atheists being moral and some 'Christians' behaving badly, see Can we be good without God? And please note what I said in response to a similar complaint from Lionel T above:
No one stops using money because there are counterfeits. Indeed the existence of counterfeits points to the reality of real money. Please don't give up on the real thing because you have experienced the false.
The former atheist, C.S. Lewis, aptly described himself as the most reluctant convert to Christ, but he was forced by the wealth of evidence to believe. And there is no shortage of evidence for anyone with eyes open to see it. So the Bible says that no one has any excuse for denying that God exists because of the evidence (Romans 1:18ff).
"Why not believe in something cooler?" Perkele? The Finnish god of thunder and a popular Finnish swearword? And you object to believing in the Creator of everything, for whom there is abundant evidence???
DB: So does the devil, but at least the devil acknowledges He is real, not just a concept.
“There is no point in being irenic, capitulation with religion is a disgusting thought.”
DB: Sounds like Screwtape (the devil’s supervisor-demon in Screwtape Letters, by famous former atheist, C.S. Lewis). But then God is disgusted with ‘religion’ too; He wants us to follow Jesus, the Son of God, not religious ritual. There’s a big difference. See what Jesus said to the ‘religious’ Pharisees in Luke 11:42.
“And the reasons I hate religion are not because it makes bogus laws that follow no intrinsic thought, but because it holds back human progress, both technologically and morally.”
DB: Yes, lots of ‘religion’ does that, but I suggest that you have a very faulty understanding of the history of scientific progress and civilizing social reform if you think that Christianity has hindered it. It’s quite the opposite. See, for example, Christianity as progress. Just think for a moment of what countries you would most like to live in and you have virtually listed the countries have been most strongly influenced by the Bible.
“Theists brainwash their children,”
DB: Who is it that founded, funded and runs the pretentiously called “National Center for Science Education” to protect evolution from critical analysis in the schools of America? Atheists! Who is it that is at the forefront of trying to remove Christian influence from public life in America? Atheists! The same thing can be seen in other countries, such as the UK, where atheists again have led the charge to prevent children from questioning evolution. When young people are prevented from hearing a different point of view, that is brainwashing!
“and allow a tyrannical myth to scare them into thinking they are not 'worthy.' What an atrocious concept. We are all born dirty. And you claim that without evidence.”
DB: Any parent who has raised children has seen plenty of evidence that children are not ‘born innocent’!
“The concept of God is immoral, and I hate it.”
DB: How does an atheist judge God as being immoral? By what standard of moral absolutes do you do this? A moral sky-hook? See: Atheism—no objective morality? You cannot get moral absolutes from physics and chemistry. God is the measure of all goodness and without Him “every man does what is right in his own eyes” (as in the times of the Judges in Old Testament Israel). Even the British atheist A.C. Grayling joked, “You can see we no longer really believe in God, because of all the CCTV cameras keeping watch on us.” Without God you have no objective moral standard by which you can judge God.
“Even if God could get around the fact that he cannot actually exist (outside of a deistic interpretation based on deterministic realism,)”
DB: Now you are claiming omniscience as well; you know everything there is to know, so you know that God “cannot actually exist”! Please see who created God?
“I would never follow such a retched character,sitting through sacred litany. No, I would rebel, as any true human being has done in the past to tyrants.”
DB: I think you mean ‘liturgy’? But perhaps you need to broaden your experience a little; most churches in American don’t even follow a liturgy.
You have rebelled, and knowingly, it would seem. So you will have no excuse when God holds you accountable at the judgment.
“Many Christians are such patriots, but they don't seem to realize that God is essentially a beefier Britain.”
DB: God made everything and so He owns and is in charge of His creation, including America and Britain. Thus, He is much “beefier” than anything you can imagine. He sets the rules and He judges the hearts of men. Being just, He judges rightly (Jeremiah 11:20). He is also the all-powerful One who not only brought the universe into being, but will bring it to a fiery end (2 Peter 3:7). But He is also love and is willing to forgive anyone who recognizes their sinfulness and admits their need of forgiveness and receives it, as offered through what Jesus has done (dying in our place, taking the punishment that we deserved). It is strange indeed that you would want to have nothing to do with the One who offers you a free pardon.
one thing I'd like to point out is you said they hate something they don't believe in. I hate the boogeyman but he's not real. I hate ghosts but I certainly don't believe in them
just wanted to comment
I would be really surprised if Christians would "crash a gay wedding". I would be interested in more information about this; when and where and what exactly happened. I would not 'crash' someone's ceremony, though I don't accept that gay marriage is legitimate. Acceptance of such as 'marriage' means legalizing the deliberate depriving of children of the right to a mum and a dad; and that I cannot support. It also means legitimzing behaviour that God says is sin, just as sex outside of marriage is sin for heterosexuals. For more information about homosexuality and the Bible, see Homosexuality Q&A. Jesus gives those who follow him the power to rise above their sinful desires. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says that in Christ we are new creations, or new creatures, "all things have become new". There can be a new start with new hope.
If you don't rant and rave against people who believe in ghosts and the boogeyman, then I can't see how there is any parallel with the atheists who rant and rave against Christians and believing in God. I can't imagine you calling people who believe in ghosts insulting names, so you don't hate ghosts at all, like the loud atheists hate God.
I'm sorry that some Christians have offended you. However, Jesus calls us to follow Him, not 'Christians'. What have you against Jesus? He has brought the greatest good this world has ever seen. If you want to see life without Jesus, just look at any of the communist countries of last century (Stalin, Mao, etc.) or North Korea today, or any number of countries that base their societies on something else today.
There are certainly some 'militant' Christians who embarrass me at times, but are they 'conservative'? A conservative Christian takes the Bible as authoritative and the ratbag element are embarrassing precisely because their behaviour is out of sync with the Bible's teaching. Of course none of us are totally consistent with God's word, so we can all be guilty of shameful actions at times. I find those who profess to be Christian but deny the basic tenets of the faith to be the biggest embarrassment (e.g. the Jesus Seminar crowd).
BTW, it is the same God who said "love your enemies" (etc.) and "go and sin no more" (to the adulterous woman at the well in Samaria). God created sex, so He does not 'denigrate' it, but He does expect us to enjoy what He has given in the manner in which He intended, which is in the context of the marriage of an eligible man and woman. When we honour God by doing things as He intended it results in the greatest happiness and social justice possible. It is sin we should hate, not God.
Nor does God want to 'limit educational curricula'. The modern era of education for all arose in societies governed by Christian principles. The universities were founded and run by Christians as Christian institutions a long time before the present era of secularism (Godlessness).
You are probably alluding to such things as the teaching of evolution (the atheists' creation myth). We have consistently said that evolution should be taught in schools, but it should be taught 'warts and all'. It is the teaching of evolution as dogma that Christians oppose, which is exactly what atheists at the forefront of 'defending evolution' (e.g. the atheist-founded and atheist-headed NCSE in the USA, or BCSE in the U.K.) want to defend. Not content with protecting evolution from any criticism, atheists in the UK managed to cajole the government education authorities into banning creation from religious education classes (would you believe?!).
Atheists were also at the forefront of banning God from public schools in America so that atheism (secularism) now has free reign. So who is it that is 'limiting educational curricula'?
Of course, the question should be asked as to the appropriateness of teaching a religious viewpoint about history (evolution) in science classes. Evolution would perhaps be more appropriate in a course on ancient history, taught alongside other views of history, such as that revealed in the Bible. It is certainly gobbling up valuable time that could be better used to teach students more of the the wealth of useful operational science that so enriches our lives (and which again has Christian roots). It reminds me of what the Bible says in Romans 1: when people abandon God, He gives them over to doing futile (useless) things. We are seeing that in the nonsense being taught in science classes; such as microbes changing into microbiologists, all by accidental changes in the DNA of the orginal chance-origin microbe. It's no wonder the atheists don't want any opposition to this dogma!
"My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world."
(Of course, this comment is fallacious in so many ways - it presumes that the theist is the sort of theist whose capricious god is prone to miracles at any and all the time, rather than one who performs miracles only with great discretion and economy as Christianity's God does. But the comment does reveal something about Haldane's theistic views.)
The ad hominem fallacy involves "attacking the opponent's character or personal traits, instead of engaging their argument". An example would be "Your argument can't be true because you are a country hick." We have not done that. Indeed, the famous former (deceased) atheist Christopher Hitchens called himself a "misotheist" (God-hater).
About your 'rape' complaint, I suggest you try for a moment to understand the cultural context. Bible scholar Lita Cosner comments (from Evil Bible fallacies):
Also, the food laws were clearly only for the pre-Christian Jews and were designed to keep the Jews separate from the pagans nations so that they would not be contaminated by their evil practices such as child sacrifice to their gods (see All food now 'clean').
Why are religious people so obsessed with the idea that moral principles must be objective?
Since you are interested in objective morality, you might be interested in another atheist's attempt to justify objective morality from an atheist's position: Atheism—no objective morality?
Citing the Bible is no proof. There are other holy books. Why are those not valid? Personal religious experiences don't count either. Followers of other religions have had these too. How do you dismiss those?
In short, what can you offer to differentiate your beliefs from those of a deluded person?
The ONLY way to test this is for your god to manifest in a supernatural way. In fact the Bible describes exactly this in 1 Kings 18; The prophet Elijah challenges the Baalites to prove that Baal exists by setting an offering on fire, at which they fail. The biblical implication is that claims of a deity can be tested.
So, I propose a test. I can supply you with a large number derived from two prime factors which only I know. If you can, by the power of prayer, factor the number then the test would be passed. With current technology it would take many times the age of the Universe to achieve, so the only explanation would be supernatural.
Perhaps you will argue that "God doesn't work that way", but isn't that "convenient", and you must think God is a monumental hypocrite if he cannot be held to the same standards of proof that his prophets hold other gods.
Don Batten: Flippantly? Believing in one Creator-God is the antithesis of trying to believe in no creator (everything made itself with no sufficient cause?).
LionelT: but the fact is that the Atheist's position is consistent and logical, while yours is not.
Don: ipse dixit? I'm sorry, but I don't have enough 'faith' to be an atheist, which would require me to believe in cosmic evolution, or bury my head in the sand and try not to think about it. See Although widely respected, the Grand Theory of Evolution is really quite preposterous.
LionelT: On what basis do you dismiss other gods that cannot equally be applied to the Judeo-Christian god?
Don: We could start with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Mohammed and Buddha remain dead in their graves, along with all other religious leaders. Jesus said, "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). As His resurrection authenticates this claim, then logically, all competing claims are wrong.
LionelT: Citing the Bible is no proof.
Don: It is if it has the authority of the Creator of the Universe, which it demonstrates it has: See the Answers Book section titled "Biblical evidence for the existence of a divine author" (p. 11) and Should we trust the Bible? and Using the Bible to prove the Bible?
LionelT: There are other holy books. Why are those not valid?
Don: See Holy books?
LionelT: Personal religious experiences don't count either. Followers of other religions have had these too. How do you dismiss those?
Don: I fail to see where I argued that personal experience 'proves' the truth of Christian claims.
LionelT: In short, what can you offer to differentiate your beliefs from those of a deluded person?
Don: You have been reading Richard Dawkins, the man who criticizes non-biologists for commenting on evolution and then he writes a book about theology and philosophy, fields in which he has no expertise. To see just who is deluded, see Critique of Dawkins' God Delusion.
LionelT: The ONLY way to test this is for your god to manifest in a supernatural way. In fact the Bible describes exactly this in 1 Kings 18; The prophet Elijah challenges the Baalites to prove that Baal exists by setting an offering on fire, at which they fail. The biblical implication is that claims of a deity can be tested.
Don: God instructed the prophet Elijah to do this. Since you apparently accept the reality of this event, it should be sufficient for you to see that the God of Elijah is real (the same God who is revealed in Jesus Christ on the Earth).
LionelT: So, I propose a test. I can supply you with a large number derived from two prime factors which only I know. If you can, by the power of prayer, factor the number then the test would be passed. With current technology it would take many times the age of the Universe to achieve, so the only explanation would be supernatural.
Don: I doubt that even this would convince you, because there is already sufficient evidence and you don't believe. Jesus said, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." (Luke 16:31)
LionelT: Perhaps you will argue that "God doesn't work that way", but isn't that "convenient", and you must think God is a monumental hypocrite if he cannot be held to the same standards of proof that his prophets hold other gods.
Don: Indeed God does not work that way. The Bible you like to quote records Satan tempting Jesus (Matthew chapter 4) to do something like you suggest, demanding a gratuitous miraculous sign from God. Jesus rebuked the devil and He rebukes you: "Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'" (Matthew 4:7)
Don: God is the all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the Universe and is especially not beholden to Lionel the atheist, or anyone else. He sets the rules, not you, and you should get used to the idea because one day He will hold you accountable for your willful rejection of His right to rule over you. The Bible says in Romans chapter 1 that you have no excuse:
Don: Although God will not play your silly games, He does promise that "You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart." (Jeremiah 29:13). The Bible also says that "God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). Anyone who comes to God humbly, willing to admit their need of forgiveness, God will forgive, because of what Jesus has done for us. "The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23).
Now, to be fair, I know Christians who are truly wonderful people, but I've also encountered many who are obnoxious and hypocritical holier-than-thou's. Beliefs do not make one a good person. Behavior does. And that is the point; People will be good or bad, and they always find a way to rationalize their behavior, religion or not. Simply having a moral code doesn't make one moral (e.g. Ted Haggard). In fact, Christianity offers the ultimate morality loophole; You can live the most immoral life; rape, steal, and kill, but at the last minute you can be "born again" and make your way into heaven. Someone else who has lived a selfless, kind, giving life, but who has never "found Jesus", for whatever reason, is going to hell. Is that justice?
You ask, "Why should it matter if people believe in God?". For most of us, it doesn't. Personally, I don't care what people believe. If you want to impose some Bible-based moral code within your own church community, then that is your business. Where we do run into a problem, however, is when you organize politically to impose your so-called "morality" on everyone else.
It's also an idea to read the comments before commenting, as you can save yourself some effort. See for example, the response to Sean K., Canada, 9 June 2012 (and others).
I find it curious that you don't care what people believe and you claim that it has little to do with their behaviour. Do you think that Christians would have flown planes into the Twin Towers ('911')? Do you think Stalin's materialism had nothing to do with his ability to preside over the deaths of many millions of his subjects? Do you think that Pol Pot's beliefs had nothing to do with his murderous tyranny?
Hypocrisy (Haggard) does not argue against the value of good moral standards. Indeed, if Haggard was an atheist he would hardly be a hypocrite, because what moral standard would he have transgressed? It is because he professed to be a Christian and to stand for a high moral standard, that his behaviour is rightly seen as so reprehensible.
And yes, there may be 'Christians' who are "obnoxious", but Jesus calls us to follow Him, not those who say they are His followers. In fact, he even told a parable about how you can't know the wheat from the weeds until they bear fruit.
As for God's justice, all of us deserve death for our rebellion against the owner of the universe. It is the wonder of it all that any of us can be forgiven, which is only possible because of His provision in Jesus Christ (Romans 6:23). Ultimately, the 'unforgivable sin' is continuing to break the first and most important commandment (Matthew 22:38) in refusing to humbly accept our need of forgiveness and continuing to go our own way.
As for imposing moral codes, atheists are working to impose their 'moral code' through the political system. They are at the forefront of the push to liberalize abortion, for example, imposing their 'morals' on innocent unborn babies. Would you like a law passed that says that Christians are not allowed to be involved in politics? It is the nature of our democratic freedom that people we don't like have the right to be part of the political system to work for a society in keeping with their beliefs and principles.
The Bible says that "righteousness lifts up a nation". The famous British poet, T.S. Eliot wrote: "If Christianity goes, the whole of our culture goes. Then you must start painfully again, and you cannot put on a new culture ready made ... You must pass through many centuries of barbarism." (T.S. Eliot, Notes Towards the Definition of Culture, Faber and Faber, 1948, p. 122.) If you take away the Christian influence, you won't end up with an atheist utopia, but hell on earth (think about the Communist states of last century, or North Korea now, compared to South Korea).
I think you are confusing J.B.S. with Richard Haldane(Viscount). They were from a large and influential family which has followed no fixed philosophical course. J.B.S. was an ardent communist and made public statements which were anything but pantheistic. However like most people he did not always agree with himself and so made some statements which disagreed with materialism (e.g.in 'Possible Worlds') even the dialectical variety.
Let me see if I can summarize your point: Because there are various claims about God and the afterlife, therefore none of them are true? That is logical?
And how could you believe every religion when they contradict one another?
BTW, Buddhah is long since dead and buried, unlike Jesus. Even according to Buddhist teaching, Buddha can have mercy on no one. In fact there is no mercy, only 'just deserts' (according to the tenets of Buddhism). Nor is there any guarantee of forgiveness in Islam. Only in Jesus is there assured forgiveness; that's why He said, "I am the way the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6).
You just have to look at the outcomes in societies built on different religions (or atheism) to see which way is worth checking out (and atheism does not look very nice; think of a death toll 150 million (plus) last century).
...
(I have read God's Delusion in French)
...
So, to put all in a nutshell, my answer is that I agree with your conclusions. I would just add that I think that an atheist may also hate God's idea because she/he may have realized she/he has been deceived.
Note: Francois submitted a 'comment' that was three times the length of the original article; far too long to publish, so it was edited down to something of reasonable length and retaining his main point (this is a commenting system, not for essay-publishing).
One question - you mention Aldous Huxley, and the fact that he was the brother of the Humanist Sir Julian Huxley; Aldous of course was not an atheist but a pantheist (that is, a believer in Eastern Mysticism, like another famous evolutionist JBS Haldane). Although pantheism is most certainly not theism (as "god" is not a person in pantheism) and is functionally indistinguishable from atheism, particularly in terms of the absence of someone from above humanity to "set the rules", it's still an important distinction.
It's interesting, incidentally, how this pantheism has sometimes manifested itself in some of the most famous naturalistic scientists of all - as well as Haldane, we have Einstein and Sagan to name a couple (even Hawking has occasionally hinted at a "god-of-the-laws-of-physics" type thing). It's as if some of the best minds realise that the very existence of regular, repetetive, inviolable forces simply cannot be explained by nature alone but rather require some additional entity as explanation. But the idea that this explanation should be the sustaining influence of an exceptionally powerful Person (or, perhaps more accurately, three People) who occasionally ADDS EXTRA to these regular forces (never mind one who, ~6,000 years ago, had a brief spate of 6 days where He did rather a lot extra) is intolerable. Seems like both their potent minds and the far-more-potent one of the Holy Spirit have been doing their best to point them to the truth. It really does sadden me to know that such people, who have done so much to give humanity knowledge and understanding of God's world, ultimately refused to do something as simple as reach out to their Creator and ask for His forgiveness. He'll never reject you, after all (Matthew 11:28-30; John 6:37).
Stephen Hawking has made it clear that he is an atheist: Hawking atheopathy. Physicists often use 'god talk' metaphorically/whimsically: Physicists' god talk.
I also think that it is best to speak of the triune nature of God in terms of 3 persons than 3 "people": A biblical defence of the trinity (I assume this was just a 'slip of the pen', so to speak).
And these atheists, who are they to represent atheists as a whole? Did they enter this so called conversation claiming to speak for all of us? You never put them in any kind of context. Are they high up in the atheistic infrastructure? Basically, what I am suggesting is that, just like a comedian's 'I was in a bakery the other day', you haven't actually had a lot of conversations recently, but have amalgamated several conversations and, also, your notion of what atheists think.
So, here's my take. I don't believe in a Christian God. The God I hope for doesn't have any human pettiness, doesn't even comprehend human pettiness. The God I hope for doesn't punish anyone for wanting to live their lives as they see fit, unless they do this at the expense of an other, any other. God, as a constant, universal force does not agree or disagree with the transient nature of human morality; and it is human morality, not objective morality, as objective morality would mean that these are morals that, even if people break, ALL people agree with, all the time, since the beginning of time, never erring, never rewriting.
Atheists are not against you, but when you're so defensive about your faith and your God it can often come over as aggression. Belief in God is a wonderful thing, particularly if that God wants only what is best for you and those around you. We are not going to burn in hell for not believing, why would this wonderful being do such a petty thing? Because I didn't believe in him? He's omnipotent, he's the creator of everything, he's all seeing, all knowing, and will continue infinitum. How would I begin to know how to believe is such a force! You will say the Bible, but for this heavenly being to turn ghost writer has always struck me as false. This is a book by believers, for believers, surely?
So, I do not hate your God. More importantly, I do not hate you for your faith in God, or feel jealous, or live a wholly materialist life.
I've had a lot of conversations with a lot of Christians recently, and they all agree that not only do I not hate God, but that my ideas and moral stand point are at least on a par with theirs. All of them said that. They all went on to say that they had never, ever met an atheist who was anything less that an average decent human, who could betray the same frailties and flaws that anyone of their faith could betray. That's what they all said.
Take care,
Sean
You ask about these atheists who hate God, "Are they high up in the atheistic infrastructure?" Christopher Hitchens does not come much 'higher' and he actually said of himself that he is a miso-theist, a God-hater, rather than an atheist. Richard Dawkins seems also to be a God-hater.
The god you hope for is what the Bible calls an idol; something of your own making. And not being able to comprehend human pettiness, it will be rather limited in knowledge, not omniscient like the Creator-God revealed in the Bible and creation. Such a limited 'god' would of course demand nothing of you; nice! A 'god' of your own making would certainly fit Dawkins' "God delusion" idea. But there's the rub; God invented us, not the other way around. And, like it or not, He will hold you and me accountable for what we do with His offer of forgiveness. Why not accept it?
Objectivity of morals does not mean that "All people agree with, all the time, never erring, never rewriting". An objective truth (e.g. the world is round) does not depend on whether people believe it or agree with it. Such would be a subjective truth.
You say that "Atheists are not against you". Do any of the following names ring a bell? Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett? All have written quite disparaging books about God. See A review of The Delusion of Disbelief. And there are plenty of other high-profile atheists who are openly hostile to Christian belief.
You say, "We are not going to burn in hell for not believing, why would this wonderful being do such a petty thing?" Because our existence is significant and our behaviour is important. You want our existence to be trivialized to be of no eternal consequence. That is not enobling but demeaning. God expects of us something not expected of mere animals because we are significant; "made in God's image".
As for the Bible, it claims over and over in many ways to be 'the word of God'. There is plenty of evidence that this is no mere human construction. See the section headed "Biblical evidence for the existence of a divine author" in Chapter One of the Creation Answers Book.
How many atheists make up Youtube videos, radio shows or websites about why Budhism is wrong, or Hinduism, or even Islam? Much less than how much they make websites about why Christianity is wrong. I do not hate atheists, I can respect what they believe in - but everytime I find myself debating an atheist - every time I fairly debunk their arguments, they get aggressive and resort to name-calling and these are atheists who would tell you at the beginning of the argument that "I wish to have a good debate with you with no name-calling or mocking". You shouldn't enter a debate "knowing you are going to win", but to learn more. As a Christian, I debate so I can know more and to stand up for Christianity - if I had never engaged in any debates, I would not know as much as I do now about Christianity.
As for the atheists who repeat that there are evil things in the Bible - you are missing the point - you CANNOT possibly tell that God is wrong for performing justice, because you have no basis of right or wrong - it's just you who decides to follow rules or no rules at all.
Atheists "forced into hiding for centuries" Really? Not in the United States, surely? I don’t know what fiction you are reading as history, but fiction it is. Atheists have never been free-er to believe as they do and that freedom comes from the biblical principles that were applied in the constitution of the USA.
Atheists can have morals? We have never said otherwise. But we have pointed out, as have atheistic thinkers/philosophers, that atheist morality is problematical because there is no way to get ‘ought’ (what should be) from matter and energy (materialism). Why should it be ‘good’ that someone leaves a ‘good’ legacy? In the materialistic view, we all just become fertilizer when we die and ultimately the universe will run out of energy and everything will be dead. No legacy. Bleak, isn’t it? But it does not have to be that way; see Clare's testimony.
You get your morals "from the world around us"? Like the 'law of the jungle', 'might is right' or "nature red in tooth and claw" (Tennyson)? Atheist Richard Dawkins said that he does not look to the natural world for moral values. A world built on such would not be a very nice place. No, you have to 'make them up'. So one person thinks that cannibalism is OK and another disagrees; who is right? It is just a matter of opinion, or who has the power (e.g. Stalin). See Atheism: no objective morality (please note, the article does not say that atheists cannot be 'nice' people or necessarily 'immoral').
You say that most atheists "abhor murder", but atheists are at the forefront of aggressively pushing the 'right' of a woman to murder her unborn baby (or even her born baby, as per Dr Peter Singer and others).
Also, if you really abhorred murder, you would approve of capital punishment for murder. As one theologian said: "Capital punishment, according to the Bible, far from cheapening human life by requiring the murderer's death, demonstrates its unique value by demanding an exact equivalent to the death of the victim." (in this article on the Christian foundations of law and liberty in the West).
You rail against 'religion' for causing deaths, but again, where Christ has ruled in the lives of a people, life has never been more secure. Furthermore, you lament "hundreds of thousands of deaths over religion", but what about the more than 150 million who died in countries where atheism and evolution was enforced as the state religion? And that was just last century. If atheism had nothing to do with those deaths of millions, then Christianity had nothing to do with the deaths of "hundreds of thousands". If people lived as Jesus called us to live ("love your enemies"), how many people would have died supposedly in the name of Christ?
Jesus calls us to follow Him, not ‘the hypocrits’.
On another issue raised the one of 'Objective Morality, why is this even important? Does everything have to be measured by some hypothetical ultimate standard? Can I NOT say I am rich if I am in the top .01 percentile? Do I have to compare my wealth to Bill Gates to decide if I am wealthy, does Bill Gates have to compare himself to Kings and Pharaohs of yore for the same reason? Why do atheists do good things, How about the "Golden Rule'? That has been around far longer than Christianity. I REALLY would like to believe in Fairy-Tales because the cold, callous nature of REALITY isn't always pleasing nor is our ULTIMATE fate(Yes, you too will be worm food, bet on it) but I can't fool myself so I feel better.Your BEST bet is on science, IF any of us will become immortal or immortal like, it will be because of hard work from our fellow travelers.
Comparison of a quantitive thing like wealth to a qualitative aspect like moral standards is hardly a sound argument.
The 'golden rule' is not universal. Just think how its practice was so lacking in those states that based themselves most strongly on atheism: the USSR, North Korea, Albania. Think also about societies based on other major religions; how much do people follow the 'golden rule' (which is explicitly stated in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible)? And what evidence is there that the 'golden rule' predates the Bible? But more importantly, only Jesus said, "love your enemies"; that is peculiar to Christianity and a major reason for the civil societies that exist today based on that heritage. This heritage is rapidly being lost and we are descending into an age of barbarism.
Jesus' resurrection is God's guarantee that death is not the end. While all our bodies might well be 'worm food', that is not all there is. Romans 8:11 says, "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you."
As an atheist, it's articles like these that really make me sad. Not because I am offended or take it personally, but because it upsets me that people like you draw such drastic conclusions of a group of people from a select few. Most of my friends are Christian, some creationists, and this is just a subject we don't talk about; because they respect me enough as a person to allow me to do what makes me happy.
Of all my friends, I have done the least amount of ridiculous stunts, among which are drinking, smoking, sleeping around, etc. I'm 19 years old. I've only had one boyfriend. I'm a member of my county's 4-H program, I raise horses and pigs, I am very active in the community and local charities, the ASPCA being among them. I've even helped my friends at one of their local church events. Looking at me, no one would ever suspect me to believe differently then them or have "tainted morals." I am strong in my character and very straight edged and I am proud of that. I don't need the fear of consequences to make me be kind to a stranger or take responsibility. Morals come from how you are raised insociety, not from religion.
To address the article, I will also say that you cannot hate something that you do not believe exists. ALL hostility that you experience with atheists is due to the followers of a deity, not the deity itself. Ghandi's quote says it all, really.
Also, we really do prefer not being told we are wrong. Or rather, you can tell us that we are wrong and debate with us (because surely we will say the same to you), but do not do so and then say it is for our own good. We do not see that as a favor, or a good deed on your part. It's actually quite rude. And very presumptuous.
1. Not everyone who says he/she is a Christian is; Jesus made that clear.
2. The call is to follow Jesus, not those who say they are his followers. What have you against Jesus?
3. Nowhere have I/we said that atheists can't be nice people.
4. Morals come from society not from 'religion'? But 'religion' is what makes or breaks a society. Living in the USA, your social values are still heavily influenced by strong Christian traditions.
5. Whatever 'society' decides is OK then? What if you were raised in a cannibal tribe? Cannabilism is then 'moral'? That is a pretty fluid basis for morality.
6. The hostility I am talking about is indeed directed at God. Christopher Hitchens even said he was actually a misotheist (God-hater) not an atheist. Other high-profile atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are, like Hitchens, God-haters. I have made the point that a real atheist would not be angry at God, or even Christians for that matter (see Is Richard Dawkins an atheist?
7. If your Christian friends truly believed what the Bible says, that you are heading for an awfully bad eternity, they would be making every effort to see you repent (change your mind). If they are not doing this, they either don't believe the Bible or they don't really love you. You could even gauge the reality of their Christianity by how much effort they are making to see you converted (even if it offends you).
8. Nobody likes to be told they are wrong, but if I was living in a way that was leading to my destruction, surely I would want my friends to tell me I was wrong? That is hardly rude or presumptuous.
I do look at the bible and other religious scripture and see a fantastic code of life. At the end of the day whether I believe in God or not, I cannot say that the bible is a load of nonsense... whether fact or fiction if we all followed the morals set out in this book (and others from different religions) then the world will be a better place.
I am from the UK - I went to Church when I was at Boarding school, and 1/2 my family are Muslims while the other 1/2 are church of England...I have had religion thrust upon me many, many, many times...perhaps this is enough for some people to say "I hate god" - not actually meaning GOD...but merely the subject of God.
I certainly do not hate god...as I do not believe in god - nor do I hate the IDEA of god...I do not hate any religious deity etcetcetc. I DO HATE being told I am wrong to be atheist.
As a Christian I do not hate being told I am wrong (atheists do it frequently and often quite rudely). I just feel sorry for those who are so wayward as to think that the universe and life 'just happened' with no sufficient cause and that we invented God rather than the other way around.
When dealing with an atheist I believe the foremost question is, WHY DO WE EXIST. We are born into this existence and witness the miracle of life all around us. World wide the majority of people suffer some type of pain and misery, be it physical, mental or in spirit for much of their lifetime. So, if this idea that we just die and exist no more. That there is no Creator and that from nothing, by nothing, for nothing became everything is true, then every life that ever lived, or ever will live, plus the entire universe is totally pointless and nothing more than a great cosmic joke. However, there is a Creator! All creation and the MIRACLE OF LIFE bear witness to this. All creation came through Jesus Christ who is also the SAVIOR to those who will accept Him. Accept Christ while you still have a chance.
All I or anyone can do is spread the SEED as shown in 1 Corinthians 3:5-7 (full quote below) “in hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth” as found in 2 Timothy 2:23-26 (full quote below).
2 Corinthians 2:14-17 (NIV) But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumphal procession in Christ and through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge of him. For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life. And who is equal to such a task? Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God.
1 Corinthians 3:5-7 (NIV) What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.
2 Timothy 2:23-26 (NIV) Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
No one said that atheists think only of themselves. And it is good that there are atheists like you who think of others. But the 'golden rule' comes from the Bible, not atheism. There is nothing in atheism that says anyone should 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' or 'love your neighbour as yourself'. Physics and chemistry (materialism) gives no logical basis for 'oughts' (what ought to be; distinctions between 'good' and 'evil'). See the Provine quote above. Materialism + "reason and fact" do not produce moral standards.
Christian faith is not "devoid of evidence"; that is an outlandish claim. See, for example: Can we believe the Gospels? A former chief magistrate examines the witnesses to the resurrection Atheists are not angry at New Age beliefs, for example, because they are indeed devoid of evidence. It is precisely because the evidence is troubling that many 'atheists' are angry at being reminded that they are rebelling against their Creator. What atheist Thomas Nagel says about his 'fear of religion' is to the point.
I also find it offensive to see that you list Stalin, Hitler, etc. as examples of Atheists. You must know better. They were power hungry mass murderers. Are you saying that they came to that because they were not Young Earth Creationists? Lee H (above clearly shows that not believing in the Judaic Christian god does not mean that you are without morals.
Nowhere have we said that Hitler was an atheist (he was not Christian either). But Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Ceauşescu, Hoxha and many other "power hungry mass murderers" were indeed atheists. If any Christian behaved like that it would be totally hypocritical, but there is no objective moral standard in atheism that makes the abhorrent behaviour of these atheists 'wrong' or even hypocritical.
However, nowhere have we said that atheists cannot have morals; I don’t know how many times we have to say this.
You say that we can't know if God exists or not. You can't possibly know that. It is merely your assertion, like the atheist's that God does not exist.
You are half right: the atheist is wrong. :-) But as far as God is concerned you are in the same boat as the atheist: "I didn't know" won't cut it any better than "I didn't believe in you". God says to both that you have no excuse (Romans 1:18-21). For powerful arguments that an eternal, powerful, non-material, eternal, super-intelligent Creator-God like the one described in the Bible must exist, see also Who created God?
There is more. When we put our trust in Jesus for forgiveness of our sins and are adopted into God's forever family, there begins a relationship that transcends intellectual arguments. Trying to convince a real Christian that God does not exist is like trying to prove to me that my wife does not exist.
If people somehow knew that there really was no such thing as a god, then I expect there would still be plenty of things that matter, like family and friends, community, honesty, etc., just as there are in communities without religion today.
With or without the existence of a god, people can and do still make up their own rules. I agree that atheism seems unlikely to be the direct source of anyone's civilized behaviour. However, there are plenty of other sources of civilized behaviour that have nothing to do with imaginary beings. Arguably, theism might be the direct source for many people's bad behaviour.
The objective moral standards that are common to all people are naturally common to all atheists too. Atheists tend to value most of the same things that theists value. Christianity does not have a monopoly on ethical judgments and good behaviour. It never has and probably never will.
Atheists could potentially be more morally virtuous than Christians, or followers of any religion, because their behaviour is not influenced by such ridiculous ideas as "it's written down, so do it" or "the silent invisible thing said do it, so do it" or "everyone else here is doing it, so do it".
How can a materialist derive moral principles and purpose to our existence from mere energy and matter? There are just no 'oughts' in physics and chemistry. What is, is, that's all.
I don't care for what believers say very much but I keep my opinions to myself because of it being such a sensitive subject.
The problem I think with atheists is we ALL have a God given brain, whether we believe in God or not. That is why they can’t always explain their reasoning, and neither can we, Hope you understand what I am trying to say.
Their hatred is not from non-belief but from a deep seated realization that in all likelihood they will have to give account to ‘someone’ and fear and trepidation coupled with a stoney heart give rise to a venomous hatred of anyone and anything that is even remotely Christian.
We know because God is clear in Romans that “they are without excuse.”
All of creation cries out and worships our mighty God and His awesome works.
When I become frustrated I have to be careful to do two things: 1) Watch what I say and how I say it. I do not want to hurt another person with unconsidered speech. 2) Consider the possibility that I am actually wrong.
I think if everyone-believers and non-believers kept both of those things in mind perhaps the dialog can move beyond accusations and into understanding if not agreement.
We do endeavour to always act with courtesy and respect, although we don’t always get it right, especially when responding to folk who are very rude to us. It is some of the latter that stimulated me to write this article, which is an attempt to understand their anger. Some of them settle down a bit after a friendly, reasoned reply, but not all; some rage on.
As you suggest, some of this anger is due to misunderstanding, and I tried to address one of the profound misunderstandings of what Christians believe that causes some of this angst amongst atheists (regarding hell).
You also say, “I do not want to hurt another person with unconsidered speech.” I commend your attitude. Again, the Bible in Colossians 4:6 says, “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.” However, what moral imperative does atheism provide that compels you to treat others with such decency? Some very high-profile atheists have taken a very different view (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.). Even some of the current crop of ‘new atheists’ do not act very nicely towards those with whom they disagree. It seems that atheism is not the source of your civilized behaviour.
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.