Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[BADecker]

Keep focusing on theories and you will have a wonderful science fiction story or two, or thousands.

If you think that you are saved by the work of someone else, fine; feel free to sit around and wait for your savior to take you away on a cloud. It makes me sad, but it is absolutely your choice to wait around for that. I will not wait because this world needs healing, so I focus on creating the soul-ution within my being so that it may be mainfested when the season is right; God demands spiritual fruit, not religious nuts.

With good theories, you will inevitably have a workable hypothesis that you can use to create things scientifically, including technologies and inventions that can help the world's people.

For example, no amount of Biblical study has ever allowed a human to be able to create manna or anything similar, but with a workable theory it would be possible and indeed it IS possible. I do not need a Bible for that, I need a rational understanding of how it works.

Personal works salvation doesn't produce any results. Why not? Because everyone dies. It doesn't work.

You might say, Bible Christianity salvation doesn't keep people from dying either. And you would be right.

The difference is that Personal works salvation doesn't have any hope after death. After all, if you couldn't do it while you were alive, what makes you think that you can do it after you are dead?

Bible Christianity salvation gives us the hope that God, Who created everything in the first place, and Who started life and maintains life right now, will do as He promised and raise people back to life at the last day.

Many people doubt both of these salvation options. But yours doesn't have any hope or chance of success attached to it. Experience of all kinds of sages who attempted to do it your way shows us that.

Jesus speaking in Matthew 22:31-33:

“But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

And again, Jesus in Luke 20:37,38:

But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.

It doesn't depend on your works. Rather, it depends on God's power. God's power works through Jesus. Jesus, the Son, speaking - John 6:40:

For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

There is hope with the God of the Bible. There isn't any hope with personal works salvation.

[1714328388]

1714328388

[1714328388]

1714328388

[1714328388]

1714328388

[helloeverybody]

Imagine how many wars and conflicts would end if everyone woke up as atheists tomorrow,  it's no secret that religion has been the contributing factor to most wars throughout history.

If everyone woke up as atheists tomorrow - I mean true atheists - Jesus would return and the judgment day would be here. There would be no more wars because this universe would be over.

The religion of atheism has by far been the largest contributor to wars throughout history.

I'm sorry but religion and war go hand in hand.  Almost every war fought has been over religion and again atheism is not a religion,  if you class atheism as a religion then what your saying is there can only be religion there are no alternatives.  The difference between you and me is I do what is right no matter what I'm told,  you do what your told no matter what is right.  

I mean why do you believe some book that was written thousands of years ago?  I don't even want to get started on how old you think earth is and evolution.

[PrikiNo.1]

But, do you think that by accepting the Christ that all of our sins are forgiven?

Let's get back to the 10 Commandments:

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10.You shall not covet.

Moses was teaching us that we should accept the Law of God if we want to have our salvation. Also, Christ mentioned that and he add plus 2 Commandments:

1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

There are many people who think that they accept Christ, but did they try to respect the Law?

Accepting Jesus Christ as your Savior is the thing that will save you, provided you remain in that acceptance. The sins are gone. Jesus took them on the cross. The only sin Jesus did not take on the cross is the blasphemy against the Holy spirit. Do you know what that blasphemy is?

Nobody keeps the commandments perfect enough to be accepted by God. The commandments were given for two reasons:
1. To show the people that they couldn't keep them;
2. To bring about peaceful earthly lives when people attempted to keep them.

Accepting Jesus Christ in the way that saves, includes some respect for the Law.

Nobody keeps the commandments perfect enough to be accepted by God. The commandments were given for two reasons:
1. To show the people that they couldn't keep them;
2. To bring about peaceful earthly lives when people attempted to keep them.

Mate, I think that you should seriously ready the 10 Commandments and think about them! Then about the other 2 who Christ add them to the Law and read this post again...

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
- This is the first commandment where God is telling us that He belongs to us and that we should accept Him as our Father.
2. You shall not make idols.
- Today everyone think that the Saints are those who keep and protect them from the evil, but they forgot that without the faith in God, the Saints can not help them.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
- How many people use the word God and how many of them are actually really believe in Him?
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
- This means that you should have one day in the week where you will devote for you, your family and God.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
- God can be our Father and Mother at the same time, that's why He is telling us to respect our parents. If we know how to respect them, then we will know hot to respect Him.
6. You shall not murder.
- Not murder even with your thoughts. Tell me, who many times did you kill a person in your thoughts?
7. You shall not commit adultery.
- Not even with your thoughts! There are a lots of people who would like to have the girl of his friend in there thoughts... Have you had this experience?
8. You shall not steal.
- This commandment is very clear.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
- How many people today pretended that they are your friends, but behind your back they speak lies about you?
10.You shall not covet.
- We all have desires, but are we able to put them in control?

John 14:15

15"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. 16

[subSTRATA]

Reality is quite the contrary actually. Only a handful of events occur in nature that is not yet described and linked mathematically to a theory.

In addition, just because there is a theory doesn't mean that there might not be a host of other theories about the same thing, some of them precisely opposite of others. Nor does it mean that the theory necessarily is going to be found out to be fact.

Theory is a good guess, and sometimes, a not so good guess.

thats actually more or less true. there are some inconsistencies between the quantum mechanics theories and the relativity theories. separately, and within the domains they respectively work on, these theories are 100% accurate, but as soon as you say, apply quantum theories to larger objects that QM does not cover, you can start seeing some inconsistencies that are large enough to be observable. bpth theories describe the state of objects at a given time, but of small and larger sizes (QM and relativity). this is just 1 case though.

[BADecker]

Imagine how many wars and conflicts would end if everyone woke up as atheists tomorrow,  it's no secret that religion has been the contributing factor to most wars throughout history.

If everyone woke up as atheists tomorrow - I mean true atheists - Jesus would return and the judgment day would be here. There would be no more wars because this universe would be over.

The religion of atheism has by far been the largest contributor to wars throughout history.

I'm sorry but religion and war go hand in hand.  Almost every war fought has been over religion and again atheism is not a religion,  if you class atheism as a religion then what your saying is there can only be religion there are no alternatives.  The difference between you and me is I do what is right no matter what I'm told,  you do what your told no matter what is right.  

I mean why do you believe some book that was written thousands of years ago?  I don't even want to get started on how old you think earth is and evolution.

You said it, brother. The atheism religion has caused tremendous and gigantic wars. The biggest war the atheism religion has caused is the war between God and the devil, both fighting for the souls of men - God fighting to save people, and the devil fighting to destroy them.

We have been blessed by God in that He set up the Jewish religion, and later brought this religion into fulfillment by setting up Christianity. Both were designed by God to cancel out atheism and other false religions. However, the devil sneaked into both of these righteous religions, and corrupted much of the goodness that God had designed them to be.

The thing that the devil can't corrupt is the message of salvation to eternal life that is portrayed by both, but now offered basically through the Christian religion.

[BADecker]

Nobody keeps the commandments perfect enough to be accepted by God. The commandments were given for two reasons:
1. To show the people that they couldn't keep them;
2. To bring about peaceful earthly lives when people attempted to keep them.

Mate, I think that you should seriously ready the 10 Commandments and think about them! Then about the other 2 who Christ add them to the Law and read this post again...

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
- This is the first commandment where God is telling us that He belongs to us and that we should accept Him as our Father.
2. You shall not make idols.
- Today everyone think that the Saints are those who keep and protect them from the evil, but they forgot that without the faith in God, the Saints can not help them.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
- How many people use the word God and how many of them are actually really believe in Him?
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
- This means that you should have one day in the week where you will devote for you, your family and God.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
- God can be our Father and Mother at the same time, that's why He is telling us to respect our parents. If we know how to respect them, then we will know hot to respect Him.
6. You shall not murder.
- Not murder even with your thoughts. Tell me, who many times did you kill a person in your thoughts?
7. You shall not commit adultery.
- Not even with your thoughts! There are a lots of people who would like to have the girl of his friend in there thoughts... Have you had this experience?
8. You shall not steal.
- This commandment is very clear.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
- How many people today pretended that they are your friends, but behind your back they speak lies about you?
10.You shall not covet.
- We all have desires, but are we able to put them in control?

John 14:15

15"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. 16

Accepting Jesus Christ in the way that saves, includes some respect for the Law. Anyone that says he is a Christian and does not show respect for the law, especially when he is aware of the law, that person is a liar.

Anyone who says that he is a respecter of the law, and doesn't accept Jesus salvation, doesn't respect the law nearly as much as he thinks.

[BADecker]

Reality is quite the contrary actually. Only a handful of events occur in nature that is not yet described and linked mathematically to a theory.

In addition, just because there is a theory doesn't mean that there might not be a host of other theories about the same thing, some of them precisely opposite of others. Nor does it mean that the theory necessarily is going to be found out to be fact.

Theory is a good guess, and sometimes, a not so good guess.

thats actually more or less true. there are some inconsistencies between the quantum mechanics theories and the relativity theories. separately, and within the domains they respectively work on, these theories are 100% accurate, but as soon as you say, apply quantum theories to larger objects that QM does not cover, you can start seeing some inconsistencies that are large enough to be observable. bpth theories describe the state of objects at a given time, but of small and larger sizes (QM and relativity). this is just 1 case though.

People are not completely stupid. Yet, because there is so extremely much complexity, a person might have time to become a true expert in only one or two fields.

Quantum mechanics and quantum math are all about probability. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo. If an expert is smart enough, he can direct QM in a direction that helps him solve some problem that he is looking for the answer to. When we, lay people, see what the expert has done, we often think that QM are the reigning sciences.

We are wrong. The reason we are wrong is that we don't understand that QM can help us find the answer in every area, and every direction, that we might be looking for the answer in. Here's what I mean.

Right in this forum there are people who believe the earth is round, and there are people who believe it is flat. There is a reasonable amount of QM that seems to have proven that the earth is round. There is no QM that has proven that the earth is flat. Why isn't there any flat earth QM? For only one reason, and one reason only. Nobody with sufficient knowledge and theory about flat earth mechanics has tried to use QM to prove flat earth.

QM proves nothing, and it proves everything. It proves whatever the knowledgeable scientist or technician uses it to prove. QM can be used to prove directly opposite things to be correct. Anything that QM has proven to be true, it can also prove false if used in a different way.

At our current stage of knowledge about QM, QM only shows a probable path to an end result. The result has to be proven by other methods than QM if we want to prove that it is true. QM is a crutch that only helps us get there, but not by proving anything.

[sorryforthat]

Imagine how many wars and conflicts would end if everyone woke up as atheists tomorrow,  it's no secret that religion has been the contributing factor to most wars throughout history.

If everyone woke up as atheists tomorrow - I mean true atheists - Jesus would return and the judgment day would be here. There would be no more wars because this universe would be over.

The religion of atheism has by far been the largest contributor to wars throughout history.

I'm sorry but religion and war go hand in hand.  Almost every war fought has been over religion and again atheism is not a religion,  if you class atheism as a religion then what your saying is there can only be religion there are no alternatives.  The difference between you and me is I do what is right no matter what I'm told,  you do what your told no matter what is right.  

I mean why do you believe some book that was written thousands of years ago?  I don't even want to get started on how old you think earth is and evolution.

You are wrong. The biggest contributors to the most deaths would be driven by atheism and/or the likes of atheistic beliefs. Make no mistake about it, Hitler didnt give a shit about religion and Stalin and Mussolini definitely didnt drive a religious agenda either. With that said, war and religion.... sure I suppose is a big problem but not the biggest. 

Who says what you do is right? Is it societal norms? I am in no way religious but anyone who isnt cannot deny that our world as it sits currently is completely structured from religion in most forms. Whether that be what is right and what is wrong, the words you use on a daily basis, how you classify history in terms of dates and the list goes on. You may not believe in god, gods, or religion but you are living in a society that was built from the ground up on religion in all forms.

Evolution and the age of the universe? You do realize that the hierarchy of religion contains many well educated people. My comparative religions teacher a while back was a Jesuit Priest who had a Doctorate in Physics and by no means would he ever discount the idea of evolution and the history of man; from the Proto Indo Europeans on forward.

You may need to dig a little deeper to understand the difference from some southern preacher spouting out what his congregation stands for and those that believe in god, who also happen to be very well educated.

[organofcorti]

......
Next, right above my quote containing some links to sites that explain what atheism is, and how it is aligned with what a religion is, you wrote, "No. Really really no. That's not atheism at all." And following my link quote you wrote, "None of these links describe atheism." Yet atheism was, like, the entire point of the info in those links... describing atheism. The point here is, you have your opinion. That's okay. I can't apologize for you having an opinion; it isn't my fault you have opinions; so that wasn't what I was apologizing for.

 All your links are religious sites attempting to explain atheism.

Atheism explained by religious people is one minority trying to explain another minority that they've never met before. It doesn't work.

Therefore none of those links describe atheism, they describe what religious people think atheism actually is.

So, what was I apologizing for? I was apologizing that I was taking unfair mental advantage of some near-retarded joker who thinks that anybody would think that search engines might possibly be authorities on atheism; or one who wants to bolster his ideals with limited, not-necessarily-factual information; and one who by his expressing of his "belief" goes entirely against the beliefs of many others, without allowing that some of those others might be right.

I was also apologizing for "roughly" dealing with a weak mentality that doesn't even recognize that the way he is handling his describing of atheism is in a totally religious way.

Honest and fair people don't deal roughly with children. At least not the first time. And I still don't want to deal even the slightest in a rough way with your mentality. But you are pushing the issue.



EDIT: Now, I know you will have trouble understanding what I have written above. But that's okay. Other people will understand.

From context, your post doesn't actually mention being sorry for any of the ad-hominem attack you write above. I think you just made it up solely for this post.

As I've mentioned before nothing about my beliefs are religious. I have no opinion about magical sky fathers, rock spirits, snake men or any of the multitude of religious beliefs.

And if some god appears and claims to be the one true god and that god has no other explanation, I'll change my mind.

Anyway, each time you write about what you think I believe, I'll be here to correct you. I won't even take you to task for your irrational ad-hominem attacks.

Now, look at the points you made above. Most of them are points about your religion. They are your doctrines. The more you emphasize them, the stronger your religion becomes. Notice in the definitions, #6, below.

From Dictionary.com at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]


noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion:
a religion to one's vow.

EDIT: Besides, saying the truth isn't ad hominem.

What are the points I made that are religious in nature? All I wrote is that I have no opinion about the existence of gods, and that I find the whole idea pointless and boring. I don't think about the topic at all, unless I'm faced with someone trying to tell me what I should believe. How is that a religion? It does not fit any of your dictionary's eight points.

[1aguar]

All your links are religious sites attempting to explain atheism.

Atheism explained by religious people is one minority trying to explain another minority that they've never met before. It doesn't work.

Therefore none of those links describe atheism, they describe what religious people think atheism actually is.

To say nothing about "religious people", we do know one thing for sure:
Only Man or GOD could be the guarantor of knowledge and thought (reason).
Hence, all atheists are humanists, since what else could they be?
At least, all rational atheists are humanists. See: "What is Atheism?" in Atheism and Secularity, Vol. 1, Page 10.
Therefore, if one understands the logic behind humanism, one can understand atheism.
If one has refuted the logic behind humanism, then it is proven that all atheists are incorrect.
Therefore, one who has refuted the logic behind humanism has more understanding about atheism itself than any atheist.
What do you think atheism actually is? Just a way to escape all labels and ideologies?

Atheism cannot be re-defined as "a way out of any and all ideological systems" because it is actually an answer to the god-question and it is defined in the context of rationalism; to re-define atheism in this way is to declare not only the death of God but also the death of Man.

Once, atheism meant the opposition to, the resistance against god(s). Now, it only means freedom, to establish new norms and new institutions, and to tear them down and establish new ones again. I think the pseudo-skeptics are doing a disservice to atheists. Atheists should read more before coming to a faulty conclusion that is not supported by the evidence.

Thinking is man's only basic virtue, so who or what gives substance to that activity? Who is the guarantor?

Darwin doubted human reason was reliable if it evolved through natural selection. This is a key point in the argument that materialism is not a rational philosophy. If you cannot trust human reason, then it is irrational to believe anything, including materialism. It is significant that Darwin's beliefs on this subject undermine materialism because Darwin's theory of natural selection was one of the most important ideas that led to materialism and philosophical naturalism being adopted by most scientists. When you consider that Darwin believed natural laws were designed, and he did not trust human reason if it arose through natural selection, you begin to see that exploiting Darwinian theory as foundation of materialism is a huge scam.
Source

Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it [this act is also referred to as "magical thinking" by skeptics!], that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict “It is.” Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say “It is,” you are refusing to say “I am.” By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: “Who am I to know?” he is declaring: “Who am I to live?”

[1aguar]

Reality is quite the contrary actually. Only a handful of events occur in nature that is not yet described and linked mathematically to a theory.

In addition, just because there is a theory doesn't mean that there might not be a host of other theories about the same thing, some of them precisely opposite of others. Nor does it mean that the theory necessarily is going to be found out to be fact.

Theory is a good guess, and sometimes, a not so good guess.

thats actually more or less true. there are some inconsistencies between the quantum mechanics theories and the relativity theories. separately, and within the domains they respectively work on, these theories are 100% accurate, but as soon as you say, apply quantum theories to larger objects that QM does not cover, you can start seeing some inconsistencies that are large enough to be observable. bpth theories describe the state of objects at a given time, but of small and larger sizes (QM and relativity). this is just 1 case though.

Good. Now you have to understand how QM applies to consciousness. Enter the Orch OR theory of Penrose and Hammeroff; it is a scientific hypothesis about mind which invokes QM and it has not been defeated thus far. To understand philosophy of mind (which is really just metaphysics of mind), the first step is to realize that the materialist, reductionist framework cannot apply; this follows immediately from the Orch OR hypothesis since it can be readily seen that feelings ("qualia") came BEFORE the brain; apparently even a single-cell organism (paramecium) has rudimentary feelings and is capable of some clever behavior; according to the hypothesis, this is a result of QM interactions with the microtubules. This hypothesis has a track record and understanding it presents the most viable solution to the hard problem of consciousness. I linked to an explanation by Hammeroff and will link it again, and it is advised to follow the relevant links to understand the argument; the comments are a good read too!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-hameroff/more-rational-than-thou-a_b_7515498.html

It is also VERY interesting to note the correspondence between the human experience of NDE and the "quirky" principles of quantum physics:
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a22

More information about QM's link to the mind was posted here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg11835498#msg11835498

[BADecker]

Now, look at the points you made above. Most of them are points about your religion. They are your doctrines. The more you emphasize them, the stronger your religion becomes. Notice in the definitions, #6, below.

From Dictionary.com at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]


noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion:
a religion to one's vow.

EDIT: Besides, saying the truth isn't ad hominem.

What are the points I made that are religious in nature? All I wrote is that I have no opinion about the existence of gods, and that I find the whole idea pointless and boring. I don't think about the topic at all, unless I'm faced with someone trying to tell me what I should believe. How is that a religion? It does not fit any of your dictionary's eight points.

You forgot to read the little line that I said, pointing at the definition of the word religion. Read number 6 in the definition of religion quoted above. It says, "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice." Don't take my word for it. Go to the link and look up the definition for yourself.

The fact that you are constantly explaining and defending what you believe - it doesn't matter what it is - shows that you have religion. If you happen to include some of the other definition points in your religious beliefs, your religion is even stronger.

[BADecker]

Reality is quite the contrary actually. Only a handful of events occur in nature that is not yet described and linked mathematically to a theory.

In addition, just because there is a theory doesn't mean that there might not be a host of other theories about the same thing, some of them precisely opposite of others. Nor does it mean that the theory necessarily is going to be found out to be fact.

Theory is a good guess, and sometimes, a not so good guess.

thats actually more or less true. there are some inconsistencies between the quantum mechanics theories and the relativity theories. separately, and within the domains they respectively work on, these theories are 100% accurate, but as soon as you say, apply quantum theories to larger objects that QM does not cover, you can start seeing some inconsistencies that are large enough to be observable. bpth theories describe the state of objects at a given time, but of small and larger sizes (QM and relativity). this is just 1 case though.

Good. Now you have to understand how QM applies to consciousness. Enter the Orch OR theory of Penrose and Hammeroff; it is a scientific hypothesis about mind which invokes QM and it has not been defeated thus far. To understand philosophy of mind (which is really just metaphysics of mind), the first step is to realize that the materialist, reductionist framework cannot apply; this follows immediately from the Orch OR hypothesis since it can be readily seen that feelings ("qualia") came BEFORE the brain; apparently even a single-cell organism (paramecium) has rudimentary feelings and is capable of some clever behavior; according to the hypothesis, this is a result of QM interactions with the microtubules. This hypothesis has a track record and understanding it presents the most viable solution to the hard problem of consciousness. I linked to an explanation by Hammeroff and will link it again, and it is advised to follow the relevant links to understand the argument; the comments are a good read too!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-hameroff/more-rational-than-thou-a_b_7515498.html

It is also VERY interesting to note the correspondence between the human experience of NDE and the "quirky" principles of quantum physics:
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a22

More information about QM's link to the mind was posted here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg11835498#msg11835498

And that is just getting started. If you wanted to apply QM to consciousness via String Theory, you would see that the whole universe has consciousness. The question is, does God have consciousness outside of the universe (remember, universe means everything)?

[subSTRATA]

Reality is quite the contrary actually. Only a handful of events occur in nature that is not yet described and linked mathematically to a theory.

In addition, just because there is a theory doesn't mean that there might not be a host of other theories about the same thing, some of them precisely opposite of others. Nor does it mean that the theory necessarily is going to be found out to be fact.

Theory is a good guess, and sometimes, a not so good guess.

thats actually more or less true. there are some inconsistencies between the quantum mechanics theories and the relativity theories. separately, and within the domains they respectively work on, these theories are 100% accurate, but as soon as you say, apply quantum theories to larger objects that QM does not cover, you can start seeing some inconsistencies that are large enough to be observable. bpth theories describe the state of objects at a given time, but of small and larger sizes (QM and relativity). this is just 1 case though.

Good. Now you have to understand how QM applies to consciousness. Enter the Orch OR theory of Penrose and Hammeroff; it is a scientific hypothesis about mind which invokes QM and it has not been defeated thus far. To understand philosophy of mind (which is really just metaphysics of mind), the first step is to realize that the materialist, reductionist framework cannot apply; this follows immediately from the Orch OR hypothesis since it can be readily seen that feelings ("qualia") came BEFORE the brain; apparently even a single-cell organism (paramecium) has rudimentary feelings and is capable of some clever behavior; according to the hypothesis, this is a result of QM interactions with the microtubules. This hypothesis has a track record and understanding it presents the most viable solution to the hard problem of consciousness. I linked to an explanation by Hammeroff and will link it again, and it is advised to follow the relevant links to understand the argument; the comments are a good read too!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-hameroff/more-rational-than-thou-a_b_7515498.html

It is also VERY interesting to note the correspondence between the human experience of NDE and the "quirky" principles of quantum physics:
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a22

More information about QM's link to the mind was posted here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg11835498#msg11835498

And that is just getting started. If you wanted to apply QM to consciousness via String Theory, you would see that the whole universe has consciousness. The question is, does God have consciousness outside of the universe (remember, universe means everything)?

this is just my point of view.
the human consciousness is not something that can be definitely quantified and explained, and as far as im concerned, quantum mechanics is a specialized theory dealing in the state of extremely small particles at a given time. that view of mine is not something that will not change, not until a veritable theory linking the human mind to a quantifiable explanation is found. so far, i dont think this is something that will be achieved anytime soon, perhaps in the next decade, but its a mystery as far as im concerned.

[BADecker]

this is just my point of view.
the human consciousness is not something that can be definitely quantified and explained, and as far as im concerned, quantum mechanics is a specialized theory dealing in the state of extremely small particles at a given time. that view of mine is not something that will not change, not until a veritable theory linking the human mind to a quantifiable explanation is found. so far, i dont think this is something that will be achieved anytime soon, perhaps in the next decade, but its a mystery as far as im concerned.

This view is also held by every good scientist that uses quantum mechanics. Why? Because as Brian Cox explains in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo, QM is simply complex probability. Probability explains nothing factually. It only offers the investigator some ideas about what might be true, so that he can go about proving it through regular channels.

Generally speaking, most of the scientists who investigate things, do not investigate the depths of consciousness and the mind. Scientists are directed by the schools where they train to be more materialistically minded.

If a "mind scientist" had enough incentive, he might apply QM to his investigation of mind so that he could get some ideas about how to go further in his investigations.

[1aguar]

quantum mechanics is a specialized theory dealing in the state of extremely small particles at a given time. that view of mine is not something that will not change, not until a veritable theory linking the human mind to a quantifiable explanation is found. so far, i dont think this is something that will be achieved anytime soon, perhaps in the next decade, but its a mystery as far as im concerned.

"as far as you are concerned"?  
You could concern yourself with studying the Orch OR theory and THEN you would understand that QM does apply to the mind; this study of quantum biology and consciousness is actually a mature field, I saw a paper criticizing the "Myth" of quantum consciousness published in 1992 and there has been massive progress since then; notably, researchers have observed evidence which has refuted some of the key criticisms leveled against Orch OR. You do not concern yourself with the theory of Orch OR, so your opinion is not valuable for our discussion. You do not state precisely why you dismiss this theory. In fact, recent observations of microtubules definitively show that this is a very sound theory; Hammeroff considers paramecium in his writings on Huffington Post, and that is a very powerful example of quantum biology. Photosynthesis is another example of quantum biology confirmed by research; I perceive that you do not know enough about this theory (Orch OR) to say whether or not it is "veritable". I am telling you that Orch OR is a part of a sound metaphysics of mind and is being validated by findings in quantum biology; why would you express that you doubt my claim unless you had a genuine objection to the evidence thereof? I have not heard any objections to Orch OR, so I perceive that you promote a fallacy which is called "argument from ignorance" and cloak it with "point of view" instead of reading it ALL so that you can judge in wisdom of knowledge. "As far as I am concerned", you simply do not wish to study the evidence before declaring your opinion and apparent prejudice. Kindly take a look at the Huffington Post articles from Hammeroff and the associated comments; does your point of view have value when compared to the evidence of quantum biology? Let's talk about it and then maybe you can change my point of view. To be clear, I do believe that the hard problem of consciousness is solvable with the tools and theories we presently have available; some theorists have even claimed a solution!

Could someone tell me: Why do atheists hate quantum biology?  

[1aguar]

And that is just getting started. If you wanted to apply QM to consciousness via String Theory, you would see that the whole universe has consciousness. The question is, does God have consciousness outside of the universe (remember, universe means everything)?

That question has an obvious answer:
There is only one ANYTHING, so there can be no thing outside of THAT. The Creation is a part of the Creator and the Creator a part of the Creation; Jesus stated that YOU are a Creator, so the point is to reach out and touch someone--like GOD. There can be an "invisible" or "virtual" universe "within" the universe, but certainly there cannot be a non-universe (e.g. without the universe or outside of it).

No need to use "String Theory"; Bohm's pilot wave theory suffices to explain the phenomena of Orch OR and quantum biology with the nonlocality explained by both future phase (retrocausal) and history phase (causal) waves; research is ongoing and it is certainly an exciting time to be a theorist (or even a layman)!

Have a look at Bohm's theory as summarized in the
Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Physics

[organofcorti]

You forgot to read the little line that I said, pointing at the definition of the word religion. Read number 6 in the definition of religion quoted above. It says, "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice." Don't take my word for it. Go to the link and look up the definition for yourself.

The fact that you are constantly explaining and defending what you believe - it doesn't matter what it is - shows that you have religion. If you happen to include some of the other definition points in your religious beliefs, your religion is even stronger.

I don't believe in anything or follow it devotedly (maybe bitcoin, but I don't believe anyone would believe bitcoin is a religion). I'm explaining my own views because you keep ascribing me views that I don't have.

Is it religion to prove you are innocent of some action or thought? Does every lawyer believe that the law is a god? Yet they "constantly explain and defend" what they mean.

You seem to believe that any action one takes suggests religion? Are there any actions one can take that *do not* suggest religion? Or suggest *no religion*?

[BADecker]

You forgot to read the little line that I said, pointing at the definition of the word religion. Read number 6 in the definition of religion quoted above. It says, "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice." Don't take my word for it. Go to the link and look up the definition for yourself.

The fact that you are constantly explaining and defending what you believe - it doesn't matter what it is - shows that you have religion. If you happen to include some of the other definition points in your religious beliefs, your religion is even stronger.

I don't believe in anything or follow it devotedly (maybe bitcoin, but I don't believe anyone would believe bitcoin is a religion). I'm explaining my own views because you keep ascribing me views that I don't have.

The fact that you express your views whatever they are over and over shows that you have a religion in your views. Your views are the doctrine of your religion. In the definition of "religion," as I stated above, religion is "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

Here you are, devotedly responding that you don't have any religion. But the way you are devotedly responding says that you do, according to the definition of religion.

Is it religion to prove you are innocent of some action or thought? Does every lawyer believe that the law is a god? Yet they "constantly explain and defend" what they mean.

According to the definition of "religion," if a lawyer "believes in and follows devotedly" some things regarding law, he has his own personal religion therein. And it is even deeper with a lawyer, because law often pertains to "a point or matter of ethics or conscience."

You seem to believe that any action one takes suggests religion? Are there any actions one can take that *do not* suggest religion? Or suggest *no religion*?

This is what I and many others are trying to tell you. The only way that might come close to suggesting that you have no religion is if you live your life spontaneously all the time. But this would still be your religion.

Solomon in the Old Testament, and Saint Paul in the New Testament, both suggested that we are to live a life of moderation. The only way to live moderation moderately is to splurge once in awhile.

Your life is your religion, even if you have no formal religion.

[1aguar]

This is what I and many others are trying to tell you. The only way that might come close to suggesting that you have no religion is if you live your life spontaneously all the time. But this would still be your religion.

Who exactly has tried to say that no one can avoid being religious in real life??

Solomon in the Old Testament, and Saint Paul in the New Testament, both suggested that we are to live a life of moderation. The only way to live moderation moderately is to splurge once in awhile.

What does moderation have to do with anything? If a homosexual moderates his desires, and yet "splurges" by occasionally having gay sex, does this make his life balanced and righteous? And why is it not "balanced" to be "devoted" to balance?? This definition only goes so far, and I will finally deconstruct it now:

Your life is your religion, even if you have no formal religion.

You are religious only if you are "devoted". If you never "believe something too much", then you don't have a religion, then you are called "rational" since you can intelligently evaluate new ideas when presented.

If you look in the section titled "What is Atheism" in Atheism and Secularity, Vol. 1, you will see that to be "agnostic" means nothing more than to be "rational". I doubt that you will be able to transform "lack of belief" or "uncertainty about a belief" into "devotional belief" with the use of reason. But then again, I do not EXPECT you to be rational since you are more religious than me! This reminds me of Einstein's conversation with the Indian poet Tagore wherein Einstein exclaimed "I am more religious than you!"; Einstein believed in an objective order which existed independently of the mind while admitting that he did not fully understand the meaning of this mysterious belief while Tagore believed in the "universal man" who beholds all things and for whom the unknown is totally nonexistent. To be devoted only means that you go beyond what is known and what is rational; that is the essence of religion. Mere "belief" does not suffice; if you question me about the weather, I will tell you the truth with devotion; that means that my religion is truth and that it is perfectly rational to respond in defense of the truth, even if it appears a bit silly.