Why are atheists so mad at god? I have heard this several million times, and apologists even posing that statement at famous atheists. The answer as always, is quite simple. Often leaving out one key point, allows apologists a foothold to say “see, they believe in god, they’re just angry with him”. That key point, when discussing atrocities and misery on the world is the word “if”. If there was a god, he is not the kind and loving father religion claims. He is all the things scripture and preachers teach against and more. God kills, tortures, exterminates, shames, oppresses, mutilates, enslaves, and decimates. Those that preach the loudest are usually the most guilty. “God is love” is a ploy to distract the evidence and cover the truth. Giving him credit for a saving one person from a tsunami that kills 300,000 people is just so spiritual, Isn’t it? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. If it kills like a genocidal maniac, starves out populations, causes death plagues on a fifth of the worlds populations, it is an evil god, not a good god. “If” there was one.
Stopping evolution may be the next “global warming” type crisis, as it is currently affecting about 7.6 billion people as of December 2017. The United Nations median estimates it will further increase to 11.8 billion by the year 2100. Each generation is changing, and right before our eyes each new crop presses into an unknown firestorm of change. Do you realize in 2100, that virtually every person 10 years or older with few exception, at this very moment will be dead and gone and the world of people will be an entirely new stock of homo sapient ascent? Or descent, depending on your flavor of mind. Think about that! A new 11.8 billion people will be replacing every contestant in the current population. Will we be smarter, stronger, or faster than the current population? A few, maybe, but not by much. Each new birth starts anew, and the old ways make their way into textbooks so thick a lifetime of learning is dumped in a pile to sift through and decipher. That is, if you want to. The growing and vast archives of world knowledge will be even trickier to navigate, and a subspecies of specialists will emerge, making room for more certification with less education. I hardly see more incentive for more really smart people reaching for the bar of excellence with one hand on their device, and muddled with so many mediocre choices. If our evolution is going to be an improvement on the past, something new in education needs to be done. Getting 80% of the population on board to substance learning instead of superstitious, religious folk lore is going to help. The problem with evolution is it’s unstoppable and unpredictable directions. Perhaps with a little unity, we could guide our direction to a better world, and not just more of it.
You want to see this absolutely brilliant crop dusting of the Christian argument for morality see this post and read the comments. They spent the next several hours trying to address only selected verbiage and imho without question lost, and resorted to cherry picking points with Branyanistic name calling and Mel moving the topic goal posts. It was masterful ! Here’s the first comment-
“I’ve always found the morality argument for a god to be the absolute weakest for the simple reason that we have hard evidence that this thing we call “morality,” which is really nothing but a formative sense of good (positive) and bad (negative) behaviour, is a product of neurological processing power. The more neurons, the more accute an organisms understanding of it. Countless studies, across numerous species, prove this beyond any rational doubt. It is not a human phenomena, and its anything but complicated- John Zande