Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Superstition is the belief in the supernatural. Things are listed as "supernatural" by scientists because they can't explain them.

Nope, not even close. I can very clearly articulately for you why there is no such thing as talking snakes, winged sky humans, and invisible sky fathers.

It's all basic physics and biology, really. For example winged humans wouldn't be able to fly as our lift-to-mass ratio would never be high enough. Bones too dense.

I'm wondering if you've heard the news that Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been debunked...

Relativity - Einstein v. The Aether (round 1)

Einstein Debunked: The Theory Of Anti-Relativity

Eric P Dollard
[Transcribed from the spoken word]
[Excerpts]

Finally, it has been disclosed by insiders within the space program, NASA, of a “certain complication”. It was found that when far outside the Earth’s field of influence the stars and sun are NOT VISIBLE! However, the Earth and the Moon are plainly visible. There is no direct light in outer space, only that made visible by gross physical matter. This gives rise to an important question, does the “light” from the sun propagate with a velocity at all, or is it simply a function of time? The “time delay” may be no more than a hysteresis of the luminiferous aether.

Einstein is a false prophet. The Theory of Relativity as the “Holy Scripture” is like a televangelistic sales pitch. Nikola Tesla regarded Relativity as the greatest historical aberration of scientific thought. Relativity is no more than a philosophical standpoint, a virus to infect a “New Age”.

This has now become inordinately overcomplicated, but thru the lawyer style skill of the Einsteinian Physicists all terms are erased that do not fit the chosen idea. It may be inferred that A. Einstein was not much of a mathematician, and by ignoring J. J. Thompson he was not much of a scientist. Not a mathematician, not a scientist, not an engineer, so just what was Albert Einstein anyway? He was a Mystic.

[But]: The mystical experience is the force which moves one to science.

One very important fact that escapes notice (Meyl, et al) is that Tesla’s transmission networks are Mono-Polar. The dipolar concepts so dear to all now swirl down the toilet bowl. Forget Bearden, forget Meyl, it is crap for the crapper! Tesla circumvents the concept of plus and minus, there is one pole only –plus. Here is a true “Single Phase” Alternating Current, one wire only. This is a philosophically disruptive concept for the God vs. Devil duality. God has no opposite pole, it is one, positive only. This is the secret to the Tesla transmission concept. Action vs. Reaction now is voided.

Einstein and his theories can be expressed by an animal story: As understood thru his writing Relativity as a “package of ideas” is in many ways similar to the “egg of the cuckoo bird”. The cuckoo bird builds no nest of its own, it looks for the right nest among those other birds. Here found, it lays its egg in the selected nest of another bird. Upon hatching, its chick forces the others out of the nest, over the side. Such is the growth cycle of Relativity, as given by Einstein.
Consider Einstein’s statement on the same page 50:

“In the theoretical treatment of these electrons we are faced with the difficulty that electro-dynamic theory of itself is unable to give an account of their nature.”… “For since electrical masses constituting the electron would necessarily be scattered under the influence of their mutual repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between them the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to us.”

Forces of another kind, you mean the dielectric lines of force, removed from obscurity by the Faraday-Thompson concept of induction? Every electron is a motional terminus of a quantity of dielectric lines of force, these lines contracting and stretching like rubber bands, giving motion to the terminus electron. The thermionic electron contracts, pulling the electron, the cathode ray stretching, pulled by the electron. In the former case the lines of force are dissipated, in the latter case the line of force are projected, both cases the electrons assume ray like motion, with non participating lines of force filling the voids, directing the electrons. Hence, it is the electrons travel in straight lines, that is, rays.

These facts have been known from the initial invention of the vacuum tube by Sir William Crookes, leading to the extensive experimental work into atomic science by J. J. Thompson and Nikola Tesla. It is here seen that the so-called electron is only a shadow, its apparent physical mass is only an electrical momentum. There is no rest mass to an electron. It is given here that the electron is no more than a broken-loose hold-fast under the grip of the tensions within the dielectric lines of force. They are the broken ends of the split in a half package of spaghetti. Obviously this reasoning is not welcome in the realm of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Are we to believe that Einstein had no prior knowledge of the most prominent theoretical and experimental work of his time?

and yet "There are still some critics of relativity today (sometimes called "anti-relativists"), but their opinions are not shared by the scientific community." (link)

[1715101204]

1715101204

[1715101204]

1715101204

[Beliathon]

Which seems more probable to you, a Satanic Rape-Dolphin, or an indifferent universe?

[jaysabi]

I don't see "action" listed as a verb anywhere in the definition.

Since the word "action" is a noun, and it is being compared to "reaction," another noun, Newtons Third Law is talking about "things," which are not verbs.

The WORD action is a noun. Things that ARE actions, are verbs. Are you really this simple?

Actions: Running, breathing, sitting, talking, explaining to BADecker first-grade level grammar rules

Nouns: Electrons, Electrolytes, neurons, anything else you said...

When you look back at your posts, do you even realize that you've demonstrated ignorance of things they teach to 6 year-olds in order to prove your interpretation of Newton's Third Law? Does that not strike you as utterly hilarious?

Okay. Since you are so good at editing out the rest of what I had to say, why don't you explain how brain activity creates free will? Remember, the brain activity action has to produce an equal and opposite reaction.

I edit out all the stuff that has no relevance to a point, since you tend to drone on and on about unrelated things. (see for example: listing 24 definitions of a word you're using incorrectly). And I'm not the one pretending to know how neurons work, you are, remember? My calling your explanations out doesn't mean I'm representing myself as a neurologist. I'm just recognizing when someone else isn't.

In other words you can't.

There is no free will. Free will is an illusion. Play with all the nouns and verbs you want. According to Newton's Third Law, free will remains an illusion. Look at it again...

----------

electrons, electrolytes, chemicals, all working in the brain = reality = action

free will = illusion = reaction

For every ACTION there is an equal and opposite REACTION.

Reaction opposite action.
Illusion opposite reality.
Free will opposite brain activity.

----------

Translation of post:

'You can't dumb down your response down to the point where I can understand it, therefore I must be right.'

That's basically a synopsis of all your posts. And you can restate it as many times as you want. Until you understand what an "action" is, you have no hope of winning this fight.

[the joint]

Which seems more probable to you, a Satanic Rape-Dolphin, or an indifferent universe?

John Wheeler:

Stronger than the Anthropic Principle is what I might call the Participatory Principle. According to it, we could not even imagine a universe that did not somewhere and for some stretch of time contain observers, because the very building materials of the universe are these acts of observer- participancy. ... This participatory principle takes for its foundation the absolutely central point of the quantum: no elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed (or registered) phenomenon.

How indifferent can a Universe be when it depends on observer-participancy to be a Universe in the first place?

[BADecker]

I don't see "action" listed as a verb anywhere in the definition.

Since the word "action" is a noun, and it is being compared to "reaction," another noun, Newtons Third Law is talking about "things," which are not verbs.

The WORD action is a noun. Things that ARE actions, are verbs. Are you really this simple?

Actions: Running, breathing, sitting, talking, explaining to BADecker first-grade level grammar rules

Nouns: Electrons, Electrolytes, neurons, anything else you said...

When you look back at your posts, do you even realize that you've demonstrated ignorance of things they teach to 6 year-olds in order to prove your interpretation of Newton's Third Law? Does that not strike you as utterly hilarious?

Okay. Since you are so good at editing out the rest of what I had to say, why don't you explain how brain activity creates free will? Remember, the brain activity action has to produce an equal and opposite reaction.

I edit out all the stuff that has no relevance to a point, since you tend to drone on and on about unrelated things. (see for example: listing 24 definitions of a word you're using incorrectly). And I'm not the one pretending to know how neurons work, you are, remember? My calling your explanations out doesn't mean I'm representing myself as a neurologist. I'm just recognizing when someone else isn't.

In other words you can't.

There is no free will. Free will is an illusion. Play with all the nouns and verbs you want. According to Newton's Third Law, free will remains an illusion. Look at it again...

----------

electrons, electrolytes, chemicals, all working in the brain = reality = action

free will = illusion = reaction

For every ACTION there is an equal and opposite REACTION.

Reaction opposite action.
Illusion opposite reality.
Free will opposite brain activity.

----------

Translation of post:

'You can't dumb down your response down to the point where I can understand it, therefore I must be right.'

That's basically a synopsis of all your posts. And you can restate it as many times as you want. Until you understand what an "action" is, you have no hope of winning this fight.

It's a sad shame that you don't seem to be smart enough to comprehend the truth. Now, you and I both know that you are smart enough. And we both understand that you simply don't WANT to act like you understand. Here is what is happening.

The people of the world are getting fed up with all the smart scientific thinking that won't answer a few simple questions about itself. These questions are shown a little by the things that I say.

Rather, scientists would like to play games with their smarts, and try to lead people into political directions rather than into truth. And whoever you might be, you are going right along with it.

It's okay. Continue to dumb yourself down. Just remember, there will come a time when you will have dumbed yourself down so much that you won't even be able to think at all. But don't feel too badly when that time comes. After all, since you don't have any free will, it was all in the programming in the first place.

[BADecker]

image

Which seems more probable to you, a Satanic Rape-Dolphin, or an indifferent universe?

John Wheeler:

Stronger than the Anthropic Principle is what I might call the Participatory Principle. According to it, we could not even imagine a universe that did not somewhere and for some stretch of time contain observers, because the very building materials of the universe are these acts of observer- participancy. ... This participatory principle takes for its foundation the absolutely central point of the quantum: no elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed (or registered) phenomenon.

How indifferent can a Universe be when it depends on observer-participancy to be a Universe in the first place?

This is good!   

[andysbizz]

For each person there is a God, for others it is in religion, for others it is a god for himself. But when the believers are trying to impose their point of view, it looks annoying.

[BADecker]

For each person there is a God, for others it is in religion, for others it is a god for himself. But when the believers are trying to impose their point of view, it looks annoying.

This is such disturbing thinking both ways.

Nobody likes to be forced into anything, especially if it is something that he doesn't like.

On the other hand, there will probably be loads of people in Heaven who were forced at gun-point or something similar (sword-point), to believe in the salvation of Jesus or be executed.

Who will be happier in the long run? The one who went to Hell because nobody forced him to believe? Or the one who went to Heaven because he was forced to believe?

[Eodguy149]

Which seems more probable to you, a Satanic Rape-Dolphin, or an indifferent universe?

I came here expecting comments exactly like this. With such a divisive title I expected nothing less   

[HCLivess]

Believers in disbelief, forcing it on others, there is no difference

[andysbizz]

For each person there is a God, for others it is in religion, for others it is a god for himself. But when the believers are trying to impose their point of view, it looks annoying.

This is such disturbing thinking both ways.

Nobody likes to be forced into anything, especially if it is something that he doesn't like.

On the other hand, there will probably be loads of people in Heaven who were forced at gun-point or something similar (sword-point), to believe in the salvation of Jesus or be executed.

Who will be happier in the long run? The one who went to Hell because nobody forced him to believe? Or the one who went to Heaven because he was forced to believe?

So far no one has proved the existence of hell and heaven, we don't know where to went the man after death and so believe it in God or not is the choice of each individual.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

For each person there is a God, for others it is in religion, for others it is a god for himself. But when the believers are trying to impose their point of view, it looks annoying.

This is such disturbing thinking both ways.

Nobody likes to be forced into anything, especially if it is something that he doesn't like.

On the other hand, there will probably be loads of people in Heaven who were forced at gun-point or something similar (sword-point), to believe in the salvation of Jesus or be executed.

Who will be happier in the long run? The one who went to Hell because nobody forced him to believe? Or the one who went to Heaven because he was forced to believe?

You still believe in hell?


What does the bible say about hell? Is it being tortured for ever and ever? Would a kind God really do that?

This video shows why the idea of torturing people forever and ever is not the case with bible verses and discussion.

If Jesus died for our sins, He died for them by dying and being reborn. The wages of sin are death (not burning in fire forever and ever).

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[BADecker]

Believers in disbelief, forcing it on others, there is no difference

Good point.

Nobody in America is forced to go to a religious school of a formal religion. At least not by government. But they are ALL forced to go to school in at least a public school, which teaches the religion of non-religion and belief in unbelief.

[BADecker]

For each person there is a God, for others it is in religion, for others it is a god for himself. But when the believers are trying to impose their point of view, it looks annoying.

This is such disturbing thinking both ways.

Nobody likes to be forced into anything, especially if it is something that he doesn't like.

On the other hand, there will probably be loads of people in Heaven who were forced at gun-point or something similar (sword-point), to believe in the salvation of Jesus or be executed.

Who will be happier in the long run? The one who went to Hell because nobody forced him to believe? Or the one who went to Heaven because he was forced to believe?

You still believe in hell?


What does the bible say about hell? Is it being tortured for ever and ever? Would a kind God really do that?

This video shows why the idea of torturing people forever and ever is not the case with bible verses and discussion.

If Jesus died for our sins, He died for them by dying and being reborn. The wages of sin are death (not burning in fire forever and ever).

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Here's where you are missing it.

Certainly a kind God wouldn't do that. For example. Why do people only live barely to 100 years in this life? Certainly a kind God wouldn't do that.

Man was made in the image of God. Mankind has a certain something where God has placed eternity in his heart. Ecclesiastes 3:11:

He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

It's in man's heart. It isn't in his left hand. It isn't in one of his feet. It's in his heart.

God DOESN'T do it. Man does it. The fact that people only live 100 years if that, is not only the blessing of God - taking them out of this painful life - it is also the blessing of God not allowing them to foolishly and ignorantly accumulate more than a certain amount of sin debt that they will have to pay for if they happen to go the way of destruction.

The soul interprets destruction of the body as pain. The soul will interpret the destruction of itself as pain, as well. And when you have an eternal soul being destroyed, the pain will last for an eternity. "He has also set eternity in the hearts of men..."

Those who are being saved should not ponder on this too much. Such pondering weakens faith, and actually draws them toward Hell somewhat. That's why YOU don't easily recognize Hell. God is protecting you from it. But be assured. Those who go to Hell will, in themselves, receive an eternity of pain to the extent of their wrongdoing in this life, and of any intentional resistance against the salvation of Jesus.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

For each person there is a God, for others it is in religion, for others it is a god for himself. But when the believers are trying to impose their point of view, it looks annoying.

This is such disturbing thinking both ways.

Nobody likes to be forced into anything, especially if it is something that he doesn't like.

On the other hand, there will probably be loads of people in Heaven who were forced at gun-point or something similar (sword-point), to believe in the salvation of Jesus or be executed.

Who will be happier in the long run? The one who went to Hell because nobody forced him to believe? Or the one who went to Heaven because he was forced to believe?

You still believe in hell?


What does the bible say about hell? Is it being tortured for ever and ever? Would a kind God really do that?

This video shows why the idea of torturing people forever and ever is not the case with bible verses and discussion.

If Jesus died for our sins, He died for them by dying and being reborn. The wages of sin are death (not burning in fire forever and ever).

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Here's where you are missing it.

Certainly a kind God wouldn't do that. For example. Why do people only live barely to 100 years in this life? Certainly a kind God wouldn't do that.

Man was made in the image of God. Mankind has a certain something where God has placed eternity in his heart. Ecclesiastes 3:11:

He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

It's in man's heart. It isn't in his left hand. It isn't in one of his feet. It's in his heart.

God DOESN'T do it. Man does it. The fact that people only live 100 years if that, is not only the blessing of God - taking them out of this painful life - it is also the blessing of God not allowing them to foolishly and ignorantly accumulate more than a certain amount of sin debt that they will have to pay for if they happen to go the way of destruction.

The soul interprets destruction of the body as pain. The soul will interpret the destruction of itself as pain, as well. And when you have an eternal soul being destroyed, the pain will last for an eternity. "He has also set eternity in the hearts of men..."

Those who are being saved should not ponder on this too much. Such pondering weakens faith, and actually draws them toward Hell somewhat. That's why YOU don't easily recognize Hell. God is protecting you from it. But be assured. Those who go to Hell will, in themselves, receive an eternity of pain to the extent of their wrongdoing in this life, and of any intentional resistance against the salvation of Jesus.

God wanted us to live forever. We sinned and that's why we die. It's also why the life expectancy went down so much from the beginning of the bible. The bible doesn't talk about hell. I believed in hell (because it was what I was taught), and read the bible and examined it and found it to not be true. So it's not that I don't recognize it, it's that I see the bible doesn't talk about it and it's a made up thing. We'll have to agree to disagree on that, but I think you're doing a disservice to act like that's where people go when they die.

[BADecker]

For each person there is a God, for others it is in religion, for others it is a god for himself. But when the believers are trying to impose their point of view, it looks annoying.

This is such disturbing thinking both ways.

Nobody likes to be forced into anything, especially if it is something that he doesn't like.

On the other hand, there will probably be loads of people in Heaven who were forced at gun-point or something similar (sword-point), to believe in the salvation of Jesus or be executed.

Who will be happier in the long run? The one who went to Hell because nobody forced him to believe? Or the one who went to Heaven because he was forced to believe?

You still believe in hell?


What does the bible say about hell? Is it being tortured for ever and ever? Would a kind God really do that?

This video shows why the idea of torturing people forever and ever is not the case with bible verses and discussion.

If Jesus died for our sins, He died for them by dying and being reborn. The wages of sin are death (not burning in fire forever and ever).

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Here's where you are missing it.

Certainly a kind God wouldn't do that. For example. Why do people only live barely to 100 years in this life? Certainly a kind God wouldn't do that.

Man was made in the image of God. Mankind has a certain something where God has placed eternity in his heart. Ecclesiastes 3:11:

He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

It's in man's heart. It isn't in his left hand. It isn't in one of his feet. It's in his heart.

God DOESN'T do it. Man does it. The fact that people only live 100 years if that, is not only the blessing of God - taking them out of this painful life - it is also the blessing of God not allowing them to foolishly and ignorantly accumulate more than a certain amount of sin debt that they will have to pay for if they happen to go the way of destruction.

The soul interprets destruction of the body as pain. The soul will interpret the destruction of itself as pain, as well. And when you have an eternal soul being destroyed, the pain will last for an eternity. "He has also set eternity in the hearts of men..."

Those who are being saved should not ponder on this too much. Such pondering weakens faith, and actually draws them toward Hell somewhat. That's why YOU don't easily recognize Hell. God is protecting you from it. But be assured. Those who go to Hell will, in themselves, receive an eternity of pain to the extent of their wrongdoing in this life, and of any intentional resistance against the salvation of Jesus.

God wanted us to live forever. We sinned and that's why we die. It's also why the life expectancy went down so much from the beginning of the bible. The bible doesn't talk about hell. I believed in hell (because it was what I was taught), and read the bible and examined it and found it to not be true. So it's not that I don't recognize it, it's that I see the bible doesn't talk about it and it's a made up thing. We'll have to agree to disagree on that, but I think you're doing a disservice to act like that's where people go when they die.

Jesus talks about Hell in the Bible. Without mentioning the name "Hell," other parts of the Bible talk about eternal damnation.

God placed a part of Himself into everyone. Those who will not maintain their position in God as He place in them, are going to lose themselves completely. Because they are eternal in soul, it will take an eternity for them to lose that part of them that is like God, since God is eternal and beyond eternity, and has made them to be eternal.

The smelting pot of the Lake of Fire is more than simply a get-it-over-with destruction. It is the re-smelting down of everything that God placed into the universe... all of Himself that He gave to mankind... so that He get's it back purified, to be used as He sees fit.

If this were not so, the sufferings of Jesus would have been simple and easy. As it stands, "... and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Jesus talks about Hell in the Bible. Without mentioning the name "Hell," other parts of the Bible talk about eternal damnation.

God placed a part of Himself into everyone. Those who will not maintain their position in God as He place in them, are going to lose themselves completely. Because they are eternal in soul, it will take an eternity for them to lose that part of them that is like God, since God is eternal and beyond eternity, and has made them to be eternal.

The smelting pot of the Lake of Fire is more than simply a get-it-over-with destruction. It is the re-smelting down of everything that God placed into the universe... all of Himself that He gave to mankind... so that He get's it back purified, to be used as He sees fit.

If this were not so, the sufferings of Jesus would have been simple and easy. As it stands, "... and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Eternal damnation can easily be seen as eternal death instead of eternal life.

[BADecker]

Jesus talks about Hell in the Bible. Without mentioning the name "Hell," other parts of the Bible talk about eternal damnation.

God placed a part of Himself into everyone. Those who will not maintain their position in God as He place in them, are going to lose themselves completely. Because they are eternal in soul, it will take an eternity for them to lose that part of them that is like God, since God is eternal and beyond eternity, and has made them to be eternal.

The smelting pot of the Lake of Fire is more than simply a get-it-over-with destruction. It is the re-smelting down of everything that God placed into the universe... all of Himself that He gave to mankind... so that He get's it back purified, to be used as He sees fit.

If this were not so, the sufferings of Jesus would have been simple and easy. As it stands, "... and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Eternal damnation can easily be seen as eternal death instead of eternal life.

The distinction is in what life is. Life isn't some little whoopty-do thing that is here today and gone tomorrow. The life of a human being fills the universe in tremendously far-reaching ways. Removing it from the universe by bodily death doesn't work. True death of the soul is way more far-reaching than simple bodily death.

[wxa7115]

Well, a significant number of atheist's don't hate religion, after all a religion is nothing more than a set of beliefs, traditions and rituals, what it really bothers some atheist are religious people with the attitude of: I know better than you how you should live your life or go you'll burn in hell.

[BADecker]

Well, a significant number of atheist's don't hate religion, after all a religion is nothing more than a set of beliefs, traditions and rituals, what it really bothers some atheist are religious people with the attitude of: I know better than you how you should live your life or go you'll burn in hell.

Nobody should hate religion. Religious folks should respect atheism for what it is, a religion. Atheists should not condemn those other religions that are trying to save them; they should welcome and respect those who want to save people, even if their method is misinformed.

Atheists are people living their religion. Their religion might be vastly different than some other religions. The reason they live their religion as they do is, they think their religion is right. If they didn't think their religion was right, they would live their life in some other way, according to some other religion.

If the particular form of religious atheism some atheists live, happens to suggest that they don't care enough about other people, so that they feel that other people can live their life with the religion of THEIR choice, however foolish that choice of religion might seem, perhaps those atheists simply aren't very caring in an area of their lives that some others would deem an important way to care about people of other religions.

If the religious atheism of some atheists allows or demands that they openly ridicule, laugh at, or scorn people of other religions, they are acting similar to the way some people of other religions act toward them about their atheism religion.

Nobody but a vegetable lives in a religious vacuum... and maybe not even they.