Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – it’s not your god, it’s you.

Theists often try to ridicule atheists by claiming that it’s silly that we attack something we are sure is imaginary.  It’s a rather pathetic way to try to convince atheists not to demonstrate how these various cults fail.  I’ve found a typical one of these attempts at convincing to tear apart. 

As always, little is new.  This particular Christian claims to have been an atheist at one point.  That may be true, atheists can be stupid and join cults too.  However, with what he claims about being an atheist, it seems he was more a nihilist, if he was anything at all.  And this “The ship is sinking.  I can’t stop it from happening.  I can only find who I can and try to guide them to safety before it goes under. “  Nothing more than the cultist trying to sell a cure for something that doesn’t exist.  His website is spiritual-sos and since he doesn’t give his name, I’ll refer to him by SOS. 

“I was watching a YouTube video put out by Living Waters recently in which, at one point, someone being interviewed by one of the hosts was asked if he believed in God, to which he replied, “No, there is no God, and He sucks.”  It isn’t the first time I have heard such a statement.”

That this Christian finds Ray Comfort worth watching is notable, since ol’ Ray is a well-known Christian liar, and a rather notorious anti-catholic and creationist.  It seems that SOS here can’t comprehend that one can dislike and even hate imaginary characters.

“This poses an interesting dilemma: if something has no real existence to you, why would you need to have an emotional evaluation of it, or even an emotional response to it?  I have never heard an adult feel the need to share his or her feelings on the Tooth Fairy or the Wicked Witch of the West from the Wizard of Oz.  No one seems to be lining up to vocalize their two cents on them.  As adults know these are completely fabricated characters that exist solely in imagination and fictional literature, they typically are not eager to share their thoughts on these characters in such a way as to give critical feedback or scathing performance evaluations of them.”

This paragraph is the usual crux of the christian’s attempt to claim that no one should care about their god if we think it is imaginary.  It’s notable that the tooth fairy, et al have not caused humans to murder each other over whose version is right and to murder people they don’t like.     

“Those who do develop emotional connections with fictional characters typically do so in the context of infatuation with the fictitious work to which they are attached.  It would indicate either an intense interest in the fiction itself or wishing that the content or characters were real. Could it be that one wishes that God was real despite not believing? Perhaps. But if God is not real to you, then He should have no more significance than other nonexistent characters considered to be myths, for which one typically does not produce such an emotionally charged evaluation. Perhaps this points to subconscious doubt of one’s own convictions. I say this, myself, as someone who did for years view God as no more real than Santa Claus with zero emotional response to the subject at some times and with anger and irritation to it at others. It turns out I was telling myself I did not believe in something that in the end wasn’t really the case. “

Nothing like some armchair psychology lies.  It’s hilarious to see SOS try to claim that we are “infatuated” with his imaginary friend.  No, we are just concerned by the harm belief in such nonsense does.  It’s great that he tries so very hard to convince himself that atheists really want his imaginary friend to exist.  That he, as an atheist, didn’t care about this god simply shows a disinterest in things outside himself.  It does not show that his imaginary friend exists.

“When you say you do not believe in God, but then express contempt for Him as well, does not the second statement contradict the first? Why would one waste emotional energy to indict the imaginary?  If you have an emotional response to God, is it possible that this, in itself, is a statement of belief?  The typical implication of such a statement is frustration with the way He lets the world operate or the suffering He allows.  To acknowledge this in an emotional statement sounds to me as though it conveys a subtle, perhaps even unaware belief that He is real, and in control.  What then would be expressed is not a disbelief in God, but frustration with Him and possibly a denial of existence being the manifestation of it. Having expectations of God that aren’t Biblically or theologically consistent with Christianity may be part of it as well; that if God is that powerful, what we see around us should not be happening. But even that is yet another emotional statement and one that is only imposing a personal standard onto God as though it was He who is accountable to you instead of vice versa.  Perhaps it is that anger, frustration, or those misunderstood expectations which need to be dealt with, instead.”

Then he fails yet again by repeating the nonsense that one has to believe in something that one dislikes.  We don’t waste energy in showing this god doesn’t exist, we use energy to show that the lies built around this imaginary being cause real harm.  It’s just great that SOS again tries so very hard to convince atheists that we must really agree with him if we dare point out how this imaginary friend fails in its supposed promises. 

Frustration an also be expressed about imaginary beings.  I can certainly say that the character Anakin Skywalker is extraordinarily frustrating in his actions and ignorance.  I don’t claim that Darth Vader exists. 

Then we get the usual Christian excuse that atheists must simply not understand their religion “correctly”, by his claims that we don’t understand his imaginary friend “biblically or theologically consistently”, which is a problem since Christians themselves can’t agree on what they want to claim about their religion.  It’s always lovely to see the cultist whine that how dare we criticize his imaginary friend and consider it accountable to what it supposedly promises in his set of myths. 

it’s always great to see that version of the moral argument for god given, insisting that no one can question the tyrant.   

“You may have other reasons, I concede.

However, it is something to think about.  And if that is the case, I hope some of the perspectives that come out in my own writings can help with that.  It was my problem once, too.”

Oh dear, he is every so wonderful for “conceding” a fact.

Actually it evidently wasn’t, per SOS’s claim about how he supposedly never considered questioning this god even when he was an atheist.  Unsurprisingly, this is yet one more Christian who doesn’t allow comments when he decides he knows atheists better than we know ourselves.