i'm no expert in the religious mind but i can't picture a believer being angry at god. if anger there was, i think it was aimed at religion(s).

here in europe, religions are the biggest proponents of homophobia and if you've witnessed the damage it can do it will surely have a negative impact on your opinion of religion(s). anger is obviously a bridge too far but, in your story, anger at religion makes a lot more sense to me than anger at god.

Very simple... God is and will always be an easiest target.

That is quite unfortunate.

Regardless of what the Old Testament says in regards to homosexuality, Jesus Christ would've been the first person to show some compassion towards homosexuals.

I'm not saying that his was a "usual" case.

Sorry, you don't get the free "Old Testament doesn't count" pass here. Homosexuality is condemned in the new testament also, so that argument doesn't hold water.

It mentions it all of but a few times, and it's generally accepted by Liberal Christians that while the Bible does cite certain things as immoral, it is important to note that still Jesus asked for tolerance and acceptance of your fellow man. So while some who interpret, for example, the King James Version literally, might feel that homosexuality is immoral, the "Christian" thing to do is to be accepting of them, even if you were to disagree with their choice.

I think this would offer a good read for you.

To latecomer

Yes that is what I mean and I don´t mean soft sciences here.
And about definition.Belive me I know there are many of them but I want to use basic one to show that is not easy to say something if you want to respect basic logic.

If he's an atheist, why is he angry at a God, when athiests (usually) don't believe in God?

Extreme Coder

It's a shameless way to dismiss the argument of an atheist without giving it any thought- "you're just mad at god for _____". In this way, one does not have to consider the argument, instead merely dismisses it; in much the same way that a right-winger may call one more liberal than him an anarchist or a communist to avoid having to think about the topic at hand.

^ Oversimplified ^

I believe that weed & meth are both destructive and wrong. I have friends who use weed and/or meth, and I still treat them with respect and tolerance.

You keep equating the Bible with Grandma Sue who wouldn't let her kids switch a light bulb on the Sabbath. Need it be that shallow & black/white'ish?

I have an underaged friend that recently moved out in a big power-struggle explosion with his dad. "If you want," his dad said angrily, "we can take you down to the police station right now, and see what they want to do with you since you're not 18."

"Yes! That's what I want," said my friend, "I want you to take me to the police station."

Did he really want to go to the police station? I mean, most people don't just randomly say "Dad, can you take me down to the station so some cop can laugh at me and tell me I'm an idiot for dropping out of school?" No, no -- the situation is much more complicated and emotionally based.

Anyone who is angry, or just overcome my an emotional issue, will tend to make bold statements that they wouldn't otherwise make. "Am too!" "Am not!" "Am too!" "Am not!" the argument goes over who's going to play the PS2 next -- but the real argument started when one kid took the other's shoe.

Human emotion, intuition, and tendency to proclaim something as truth (or falsehood) is not plainly logical. I think we agree on that. I don't believe all atheists are as "Bright" as the world view's potential would imply.

Most of my agnostic/atheist friends left Christianity because they first became "angry" with God -- though some did rebel against the conservative traditions too. I'd like to think I left it for intellect -- but who knows, maybe I'm just another teenage rebel.

SigmaX

True, it is an ad hominem -- but it should still be considered in addition to the actual argument at hand.

SigmaX