Why to Atheists "dislike" liberal Spiritual Types?

On a forum I frequented a lot at one time, and still drop in on occasionally, someone asked me, "So Kristen, why do some atheists seem to dislike LIBERAL theists?"

I think it happens for the same reason that every single "group" is critical of every group that isn't of the same mind. Come on, as self-professed "mystics" or theists, many have obvious dislike for atheists and fundamentalists alike. Why?

I am an atheist that USED to be a fundie and then a liberal theist. So I get it. I know that I experieinced what I thought was God. I felt it. I believed it. I laid on my face for hours and days in prayer and fasting. I believed that my beliefs were the right ones, and I had experiences that I thought were of God. And so I get it in many ways, though you and other theists might think that i don't, because I didn't hang onto it (past age 37).

I think that many atheists are critical of liberal theists because they think that more liberal theists are hanging onto something that they now KNOW not to be real...to be just as much myth as Homer's works, whereas a fundamentalist is a literalist.

In other words, a fundie believes that all the words of the bible are real. That seems...well, logical. He believes this book to be all real, all inspired by God, even if most others think that's extremist and crazy. A theist who is more liberal sees the Bible as something that is more of a "moral code" written by men but not literal. As was my experience and that of many others, one begins to think, if it is not literal, what makes it God at all? What is the evidence that there is any god behind any of it?

So, I suppose that many atheists wonder how a theist can be liberal and still believe that there is a god at all, because if it is not literal, there is no proof that any words of a person who believes they have heard a god are real. I think many athiests at least have some respect for fundamentalists for that, but lose respect for "liberal theists" because they seem to pick and choose what to believe depending on their circumstances, whether there is evidence for that belief or not, and that requires even more faith than the literalist has.

I have worked in the mental health field for most of my adult life. I grew up with those who were mentally ill, from paranoid schizophrenia to mild depression - the whole spectrum. The sicker someone was, the more they relied on a particular belief system to get them through. Many of the people I have worked with and known have grasped onto some kind of faith to get them through, whether it be Christianity, or Buddhism, or Ba'hai faith.

Again, I am not saying I believe this, or subscribe to the same thoughts. I am saying that I know a lot of atheists now (I even belong to an atheist social group in my area, so have studied some of the thought) who DO think this way. To the atheist, the fundamentalist at least has a specific set of beliefs rather than a more liberal view, which doesn't seem to have any specific set, but appears to pick and choose the good things, and discard the bad, rather than pick something more solid.

We all have our biases, based on our life experiences. My life experiences to this point say that if there is a god, he (or she, or it) is a sadistic bastard (or bitch), and I would not want to serve that type of God anyway. To me, if there is a god who has ANY power at all, no child would be molested, or beaten, or harmed intentionally in any way. Otherwise, any god is just a castrated figurehead. I can pray to this god, hope in him/her, cry out for guidance, but innocent people will still be harmed, homosexuals will still be consigned to hell, people will be murdered, children will be molested, raped, abused...where is this straw man god who can't even display enough power to save the children? And any homily that attempts to explain all this away is just that - a homily - words that mean absolutely NOTHING, no matter how deep they seem.

What does the liberal mystic say to that, except that God is "other" - and does not involve him/her/itself in those matters?

But in that case, God, no matter how mystical, no matter how kind, and loving, and deep - is a god without BALLS. Who will not or cannot even save a child from harm. That kind of sadistic bastard I will not serve. And if God is something other - something that is more mystical and does not concern itself with those types of things - what's the point of serving that? So I can be all "deep" and use my high IQ to tell people of those interesting deep and mystical qualities that don't concern themselves with these earthly things?

Ennnhhhh. I won't say what I want to say about that kind of god, because I dont want to offend TOO awfully much. It does no good.

But until someone shows me a god who can take care of those "small" things, like explaining in any real way why it allows a child to be harmed physically or sexually, or any other of the atrocities I see on a daily basis, and gives proof as to why that needs to happen and whatever gods are out there are just "observers"...and you can give me GOOD reason why, then I'm not buying it.

I'd rather be an atheist than a believer of any type, because I will not serve a sadist in any way. If that gives me a room in some lower dimension or in hell itself, so be it. God (ANY god) has a lot of shit to answer for. THAT is what most of the atheists I've talked to boil down to (though I don't presume to speak for any of them). Why in the world would they want to serve such a straw man, who claims to be God but does nothing about MAN?

Yes, most atheists have huge concerns for the environment. Many are vegetarians and have great feelings for animals and the torture we inflict on them (I'm still a carnivore, but less of one than I was once upon a time when I thought that God gave us those animals to eat, and didn't want to think about how they were treated). Most atheists want the next generation to be BETTER than they are, even if they don't beleive it. See, they have no afterlife to rely on - they have only this life, but still many of them, rather than being hedonists, strive for a better future for generations after.

They're people. people who just simply can no longer understand any type of god who lets so many innocents suffer. A god who is pro-war, or even who is a peacenik but has no power to save anyone from their CURRENT suffering, should not be considered a god at all.

I guess that's why they are critical of liberal theists. It is why I am critical myself. After all this, I know that I am critical of theists. Not them personally, but critical of how they can maintain belief at all in such a powerless power.