Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[blablahblah]

Except, rereading, it seems to make more sense to think of metalanguage in computing terms. We can think of a statement as a series of instructions for running a program. Rather than a noun, the metalanguage would be an action: a reasoning process by which we somehow evaluate statements. Except that that still doesn't explain what we do when we run them. Or how we somehow seem able to overcome the limitations of computers.

1) I really don't understand the "let's not shoot the messenger comment."  I'm guessing it's non-essential, though I don't know who I shot lol.

2)  I agree that we can make sensical and non-sensical statements with plain English, and that the non-sensical statements do not render English inoperable or useless.  The syntax and rules of operation for English determine what is sensical and what isn't.  Statements are relayed back to the syntax and processed according thereto to determine if it is meaningful in a way consistent with it.  Thus, at the syntactic level there is indeed a "reasoning" process by which statements are evaluated, but the syntax itself is structural, i.e. it imposes constraints upon what can be considered meaningful.

How would you determine correctness in the first place? Maybe the syntax -- or language rules -- that you speak of are created experimentally?


One model of reality that I'm thinking about goes like this:
There's a Turing machine and a Programmer.
The Turing machine doesn't know very much about rules or syntax. It just gets instructions from somewhere, which it runs automatically. There's no syntax-checking or filtering at that level. The machine occasionally gets stuck because of the Halting Problem, so this requires intervention from the Programmer to reset it. The Programmer might also have additional powers, such as being able to replicate itself, perhaps conjuring a higher self into existence as a workaround if it gets stuck resetting the machine in an infinite loop. Alternatively, it creates and delegates a lower self, but I guess that would be pretty similar.

The 'instructions' could be message data that we get from our senses in serialised form, presumably coming from another programmer entity, whom we don't have direct access to, but only via the message tape.

Rapid multiplication of the programmer selves could then pave the way for creating complex mental structures, out of something that had absolutely minimalistic rules. Far from being a nuisance, the undecidable parts of the software are what allow both sides (message and the messenger) to exist.

4)  If you run software with code that does not conform to the syntax of its programming language, it will be evaluated as an invalid input. If valid, how those statements are expressed is a product of both their relation to their governing syntax, and also in relation to other object-level statements governed by the same syntax that may affect them (e.g. if-then or "conditional" statements).  I'm not sure if I fully responded to what you were saying, here.  I'm at lunch on an iPhone.

Edit: Linking this to subjectivity and objectivity, consider a governing syntax of Reality in total as it relates to its internal components.  As we perceive real content and subsequently process and model that content, we can either model that content in a way that is consistent with the syntax of Reality in total, or in a way that is inconsistent.  Because the structural syntax of Reality in total necessarily distributes to all of its content, if our model is consistent, then it is objectively valid, else we have an inconsistent, invalid model that provides us with no objective value.  In this way, we can consider this process in terms of a fundamental utility function, where utility is defined upon consistency and congruency with Universal syntax. 

When a computer checks a piece of software for syntax errors before compiling or running it, the processor is running software the entire time. What we call syntax would therefore be some complex pattern of learned behaviour.

[1714010401]

1714010401

[bryant.coleman]

Being an atheist, I have to admit that I hate religion. Especially, those business-cartel like religions such as Christianity and Islam. With true religions, I don't have a problem. But when business is mixed with religion (as in the case of Christianity and Islam), it gets complicated. The followers of these religions are urged to force more and more people to join their religion, through any means possible.

[Beliathon]

Seriously what has to happen in a person's life for them to seriously give up hope on the one true everlasting brand (of religion) which their ancestors have followed for generations.

Rational thought. I was raised Christian, I went to Sunday school every Sunday for months, I was taken to church with my parents throughout my childhood. My grandfather was a Deacon in his church, very involved in church matters.

I have been thoroughly exposed to the Bible and Christian thought. I have also been thoroughly exposed to modern philosophy and science. It's simple, really: Ideas fight for the right to exist in my mind, the weaker and less compelling (lack of evidence) ideas do not survive.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

And I still think it's sad when people don't believe, so I would hope people would convert even if only to live their lives doing unto others as they would have done to themselves (versus not caring what they do to others because they don't believe in consequences).

Typical retarded theist logic.

You don't need to believe an invisible sky-daddy is watching your every move in order to live within decent moral boundaries. In fact, if anything, those who are only behaving themselves because they think their invisible sky-daddy is watching are morally bankrupt already.

Let me explain the concept of objective secular morality:

The autonomy of consent serves to provide the basis for objective morality

Without differentiation which might warrant unequal consent; the overriding of the autonomy of another in order to protect them from the resultant harm of erroneously-reasoned refusal to consent; all autonomy is equally valid where informed consent is equally honoured.

Basically, I can have no expectation of my consent, or refusal to consent, being honoured if I do not honour the consent of others.

It's your "Do unto others" without the need for, "or else sky-daddy . . ."

"You don't need to believe an invisible sky-daddy is watching your every move in order to live within decent moral boundaries." - I totally agree.

"In fact, if anything, those who are only behaving themselves because they think their invisible sky-daddy is watching are morally bankrupt already." - I would agree if someone doesn't believe the sins are sins, and are just following the guidelines to not "go to hell" they don't have any morals of their own.

But God lays down a lot of laws in the bible, and some people are ok with (like thou shalt not murder), and some people are not ok with (like forgiving others who have harmed you). It sometimes takes a leap of faith to believe that following those guidelines is best for you.

In the forgiving others who have harmed you example, I heard this saying recently: "Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned." By not forgiving others who harmed you, you hold onto anger, resentment, etc. When you forgive, the weight of the world can be taken off of your shoulders, and you can live happier. That's what I meant by consequences of not following the guidelines in the bible.

All you need to do is to believe in Jesus, forgive others and ask for forgiveness for your sins. You don't have to live a sin-free life, in fact no one can (excluding Jesus who did). People should not want to sin, because it's better not to, not just because God said so. But it's also a good idea to look into the guidelines to follow, because the hard ones, may help you out in ways you don't know.

And I still think it's sad when people don't believe, so I would hope people would convert even if only to live their lives doing unto others as they would have done to themselves (versus not caring what they do to others because they don't believe in consequences).

Yes because believers never do anything bad. They wouldn't dream of moving the goal posts of what counts as good or bad to suit themselves.

Don't think I've read such utter slop in all my born days.

If you read anything I've written in this thread, you'll see I say everyone is a sinner. Moving goal posts of what counts as good or bad, is useless and idiotic, lol. Believing in God and following His guidelines will help you out more than you can possibly believe.

My point was that those who become Christians will try to be better, and follow those guidelines. Otherwise, people pick and choose as you said, and I agree people will pick and choose to better suit themselves, so those not believing will never pick the guideline they don't want to follow.

Using the forgiveness example above: A person gets molested by someone, and then years later becomes a Christian. They're reading they should forgive them, but they don't want to. It messed up their life, they are pissed. They still have nightmares, they believe the person does not deserve forgiveness. But they read that if they are to be forgiven, they must forgive anyone who wronged them. So they do. It takes a while, it's difficult, but they end up feeling free-er, like a weight was lifted, and can go about, as time goes on, thinking about it less and less. (Note: forgiving doesn't mean forgetting, so if they're still in contact with this person, they can be extremely cautious and avoid them too)

Same example, but the person never becomes Christian. They hear that Christians believe you should forgive others, no matter what. They choose not to, because they don't believe the person should ever be forgiven for that. They end up hanging onto that hate, and spend time talking to their therapist or friends, etc. Their friends may feel guilty, because what can they say to make it better? But they can't shake the anger. They focus on all the bad in their life that's the person's fault, and can't really move on and enjoy life like they could have.

[Beliathon]

Another reason I hate religion is because believing in a fictitious paradise in an imaginary afterlife holds humanity back from realizing the paradise of sexual promiscuity that is possible here and now, on Earth. This revolution our youth are already beginning to embrace in every city, as year after year marriage loses popularity.

[Buffer Overflow]

But God lays down a lot of laws in the bible,

Man lays down the laws in the bible.
Since proof God exists is impossible, any of this "what God wants" must also be impossible. If we knew what God wanted, we would have the impossible proof. Which of course is impossible.
These laws are only man just guessing.

If you read anything I've written in this thread, you'll see I say everyone is a sinner. Moving goal posts of what counts as good or bad, is useless and idiotic, lol. Believing in God and following His guidelines will help you out more than you can possibly believe.

My point was that those who become Christians will try to be better, and follow those guidelines. Otherwise, people pick and choose as you said, and I agree people will pick and choose to better suit themselves, so those not believing will never pick the guideline they don't want to follow.

Using the forgiveness example above: A person gets molested by someone, and then years later becomes a Christian. They're reading they should forgive them, but they don't want to. It messed up their life, they are pissed. They still have nightmares, they believe the person does not deserve forgiveness. But they read that if they are to be forgiven, they must forgive anyone who wronged them. So they do. It takes a while, it's difficult, but they end up feeling free-er, like a weight was lifted, and can go about, as time goes on, thinking about it less and less. (Note: forgiving doesn't mean forgetting, so if they're still in contact with this person, they can be extremely cautious and avoid them too)

Same example, but the person never becomes Christian. They hear that Christians believe you should forgive others, no matter what. They choose not to, because they don't believe the person should ever be forgiven for that. They end up hanging onto that hate, and spend time talking to their therapist or friends, etc. Their friends may feel guilty, because what can they say to make it better? But they can't shake the anger. They focus on all the bad in their life that's the person's fault, and can't really move on and enjoy life like they could have.

What I don't like here is your trying to paint a ugly picture that a person can be forgiving, or try to be forgiving, only if they choose to be Christian. This just simply isn't true in any way, shape or form.

Also, this forgivness thing needs to be dished out carefully. If a person just went through life forgiving everything and everyone, they would just be taken advantage of by others, walked all over and get screwed left, right and centre, again and again and again. No good would become of that.
Don't get me wrong though, there's a time and a place for forgiveness, you just need to be careful with it as it could bite you back.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

But God lays down a lot of laws in the bible,

Man lays down the laws in the bible.
Since proof God exists is impossible, any of this "what God wants" must also be impossible. If we knew what God wanted, we would have the impossible proof. Which of course is impossible.
These laws are only man just guessing.

If you read anything I've written in this thread, you'll see I say everyone is a sinner. Moving goal posts of what counts as good or bad, is useless and idiotic, lol. Believing in God and following His guidelines will help you out more than you can possibly believe.

My point was that those who become Christians will try to be better, and follow those guidelines. Otherwise, people pick and choose as you said, and I agree people will pick and choose to better suit themselves, so those not believing will never pick the guideline they don't want to follow.

Using the forgiveness example above: A person gets molested by someone, and then years later becomes a Christian. They're reading they should forgive them, but they don't want to. It messed up their life, they are pissed. They still have nightmares, they believe the person does not deserve forgiveness. But they read that if they are to be forgiven, they must forgive anyone who wronged them. So they do. It takes a while, it's difficult, but they end up feeling free-er, like a weight was lifted, and can go about, as time goes on, thinking about it less and less. (Note: forgiving doesn't mean forgetting, so if they're still in contact with this person, they can be extremely cautious and avoid them too)

Same example, but the person never becomes Christian. They hear that Christians believe you should forgive others, no matter what. They choose not to, because they don't believe the person should ever be forgiven for that. They end up hanging onto that hate, and spend time talking to their therapist or friends, etc. Their friends may feel guilty, because what can they say to make it better? But they can't shake the anger. They focus on all the bad in their life that's the person's fault, and can't really move on and enjoy life like they could have.

What I don't like here is your trying to paint a ugly picture that a person can be forgiving, or try to be forgiving, only if they choose to be Christian. This just simply isn't true in any way, shape or form.

Also, this forgivness thing needs to be dished out carefully. If a person just went through life forgiving everything and everyone, they would just be taken advantage of by others and get screwed over left, right and centre, again and again and again. No good would become of that.
Don't get me wrong though, there's a time and a place for forgiveness, you just need to be careful with it as it could bite you back.

I believe in God, and I believe if something wasn't supposed to be written into the bible, He wouldn't have let it get put into the bible.

I am not trying to paint an ugly picture that a person can only be forgiving if they are Christian. I don't agree with that at all. In fact the saying I wrote, came from a Buddist website. Forgiveness was just an example.

You missed where I said that forgiving doesn't mean forgetting, I just checked and I did write it. I have forgiven someone who mentally tortured me when I was growing up and prayed for her. That certainly doesn't mean I'm going to spend time with her in the future, as she reached out and said she was sorry. I can accept that, but I'm not going to hang around with her. If I had children, I wouldn't let her babysit etc.

[dollarneed]

first of all i would say that iam not atheists and i believe in God, but i have a friends who atheitst and than i realize that they are crticts specially for any religion not hate but more criticstm

[TrianglePythagoras]

And I still think it's sad when people don't believe, so I would hope people would convert even if only to live their lives doing unto others as they would have done to themselves (versus not caring what they do to others because they don't believe in consequences).

What if I said I do believe.

I believe that there is no god or devil. There are no "higher powers". I believe that.

[the joint]

Except, rereading, it seems to make more sense to think of metalanguage in computing terms. We can think of a statement as a series of instructions for running a program. Rather than a noun, the metalanguage would be an action: a reasoning process by which we somehow evaluate statements. Except that that still doesn't explain what we do when we run them. Or how we somehow seem able to overcome the limitations of computers.

1) I really don't understand the "let's not shoot the messenger comment."  I'm guessing it's non-essential, though I don't know who I shot lol.

2)  I agree that we can make sensical and non-sensical statements with plain English, and that the non-sensical statements do not render English inoperable or useless.  The syntax and rules of operation for English determine what is sensical and what isn't.  Statements are relayed back to the syntax and processed according thereto to determine if it is meaningful in a way consistent with it.  Thus, at the syntactic level there is indeed a "reasoning" process by which statements are evaluated, but the syntax itself is structural, i.e. it imposes constraints upon what can be considered meaningful.

How would you determine correctness in the first place? Maybe the syntax -- or language rules -- that you speak of are created experimentally?


One model of reality that I'm thinking about goes like this:
There's a Turing machine and a Programmer.
The Turing machine doesn't know very much about rules or syntax. It just gets instructions from somewhere, which it runs automatically. There's no syntax-checking or filtering at that level. The machine occasionally gets stuck because of the Halting Problem, so this requires intervention from the Programmer to reset it. The Programmer might also have additional powers, such as being able to replicate itself, perhaps conjuring a higher self into existence as a workaround if it gets stuck resetting the machine in an infinite loop. Alternatively, it creates and delegates a lower self, but I guess that would be pretty similar.

The 'instructions' could be message data that we get from our senses in serialised form, presumably coming from another programmer entity, whom we don't have direct access to, but only via the message tape.

Rapid multiplication of the programmer selves could then pave the way for creating complex mental structures, out of something that had absolutely minimalistic rules. Far from being a nuisance, the undecidable parts of the software are what allow both sides (message and the messenger) to exist.

4)  If you run software with code that does not conform to the syntax of its programming language, it will be evaluated as an invalid input. If valid, how those statements are expressed is a product of both their relation to their governing syntax, and also in relation to other object-level statements governed by the same syntax that may affect them (e.g. if-then or "conditional" statements).  I'm not sure if I fully responded to what you were saying, here.  I'm at lunch on an iPhone.

Edit: Linking this to subjectivity and objectivity, consider a governing syntax of Reality in total as it relates to its internal components.  As we perceive real content and subsequently process and model that content, we can either model that content in a way that is consistent with the syntax of Reality in total, or in a way that is inconsistent.  Because the structural syntax of Reality in total necessarily distributes to all of its content, if our model is consistent, then it is objectively valid, else we have an inconsistent, invalid model that provides us with no objective value.  In this way, we can consider this process in terms of a fundamental utility function, where utility is defined upon consistency and congruency with Universal syntax.  

When a computer checks a piece of software for syntax errors before compiling or running it, the processor is running software the entire time. What we call syntax would therefore be some complex pattern of learned behaviour.

When you suggest that perhaps "the syntax -- or language rules -- that I speak of are created experimentally," you have to remember that, given this possibility, there must still be an unconditional and unchanging structure at play, i.e. what defines a rule.

In his theory, Langan describes a "one-to-many" mapping of real/Universal syntax, which would allow for the simultaneous possibility of various conditional syntactic systems at the "many" level while maintaining an unchanging syntax archetype at the "one" level.  The general structure of syntax or 'rule' still applies, but how this is expressed differs within the mapping.  

When you talk about the Programmer creating a 'higher self,' basically you're talking about omnipotence.  To create a 'higher self' would imply the creation of a self which is totally unbound by the syntax of the 'lower self,' but this is paradoxical to the fact that the 'lower self' must be unbound by the syntax of the 'higher self' in order to create it.  If the Programmer can actually do this, then he was omnipotent all along, and any 'higher self' is simply one of a many diversified essence of the 'omnipotent self' [archetype].  

[tyrexs]

We don't hate religion we just think that many people who have religion push their beliefs on others. I think that many problems are caused by religion

[Lorenzo]

Only a minority of the atheists I've met truly hate religion. Instead, I've found that most are indifferent towards it. Atheists like O'Hair and Dawkins are probably in the minority.

Also, Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway have very high rates of irreligiosity. Only about 1 in 5 Swedes and 1 in 6 Norwegians profess a belief in god(s) but until 2000, Sweden had a state church and Norway still has one today.

Another reason I hate religion is because believing in a fictitious paradise in an imaginary afterlife holds humanity back from realizing the paradise of sexual promiscuity that is possible here and now, on Earth. This revolution our youth are already beginning to embrace in every city, as year after year marriage loses popularity.

I think it's unfair to blame this on religion. I'm sure it played a part but there are plenty of evolutionary theories out there for why we happen to be a monogamous species which have nothing to do with religion. One particular theory is that growing a big brain meant that offspring matured more slowly and therefore having the father stick around after mating gave the offspring a much greater survival advantage.

[blablahblah]

One model of reality that I'm thinking about goes like this:
There's a Turing machine and a Programmer.
The Turing machine doesn't know very much about rules or syntax. It just gets instructions from somewhere, which it runs automatically. There's no syntax-checking or filtering at that level. The machine occasionally gets stuck because of the Halting Problem, so this requires intervention from the Programmer to reset it. The Programmer might also have additional powers, such as being able to replicate itself, perhaps conjuring a higher self into existence as a workaround if it gets stuck resetting the machine in an infinite loop. Alternatively, it creates and delegates a lower self, but I guess that would be pretty similar.

The 'instructions' could be message data that we get from our senses in serialised form, presumably coming from another programmer entity, whom we don't have direct access to, but only via the message tape.

Rapid multiplication of the programmer selves could then pave the way for creating complex mental structures, out of something that had absolutely minimalistic rules. Far from being a nuisance, the undecidable parts of the software are what allow both sides (message and the messenger) to exist.

When you suggest that perhaps "the syntax -- or language rules -- that I speak of are created experimentally," you have to remember that, given this possibility, there must still be an unconditional and unchanging structure at play, i.e. what defines a rule.

In his theory, Langan describes a "one-to-many" mapping of real/Universal syntax, which would allow for the simultaneous possibility of various conditional syntactic systems at the "many" level while maintaining an unchanging syntax archetype at the "one" level.  The general structure of syntax or 'rule' still applies, but how this is expressed differs within the mapping.  

When you talk about the Programmer creating a 'higher self,' basically you're talking about omnipotence.  To create a 'higher self' would imply the creation of a self which is totally unbound by the syntax of the 'lower self,' but this is paradoxical to the fact that the 'lower self' must be unbound by the syntax of the 'higher self' in order to create it.  If the Programmer can actually do this, then he was omnipotent all along, and any 'higher self' is simply one of a many diversified essence of the 'omnipotent self' [archetype].  

That's why I called that entity a programmer rather than just a program. I don't know about omnipotence -- people sometimes seem eager to construct a straw man, talking about something being all-powerful but not clarifying what goes inside the "set of all powers". I'm just talking about a humble programmer whose known powers are only those that are exerted for the sake of maintaining separation from the machine.

Besides, what actual archetypes are we talking about? Not that I'm promoting a deistic world view, but an omnipotence archetype seems plausible. If it defies logic, then that's OK because it's omnipotent, it can do that sort of thing. Strangely enough, a few other candidates come to mind, which could make things really weird, like 'magic'. Magic tricks defy explanation, and if they can be explained, then they're not real magic. Magic in our minds could represent images of the ultimate 'Magic' archetype for things we don't understand. As we grow, we tend relabel everything as advanced technology and science. But it would be just be a trend, not a law of nature, and "there is no such thing as magic" is an unproven claim.

[Beliathon]

I think it's unfair to blame this on religion. I'm sure it played a part but there are plenty of evolutionary theories out there for why we happen to be a monogamous species which have nothing to do with religion.

Feynman's cargo cult is that way ----> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatg
It's perfectly fair to hold religion responsible for monogamy, and you need to read Sex at Dawn.

[BADecker]

As I have said before, the simple atheist probably does not hate religion. But the atheist who practices his atheism, deeply, hates religion because he can see no way out of coming to the conclusion that atheism is a religion. And he doesn't like being wrong, same as any of us. Yet the deeper he gets into atheism, the "wronger" he recognizes that he is.

[Cearea11]

Atheists hate religion because most of them have an open mind. Religious people very often think that god will protect their life, will help them etc etc. I'm atheist after being religious. Right now I'm considering religion like a group of people that have an imaginary friend in common (God/Jesus).

[BADecker]

Atheists hate religion because most of them have an open mind. Religious people very often think that god will protect their life, will help them etc etc. I'm atheist after being religious. Right now I'm considering religion like a group of people that have an imaginary friend in common (God/Jesus).

You sound more like an agnostic in some ways. Do you really think that God doesn't exist? Or do you simply think that there is no way of knowing whether or not God exists?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

[bank of bits]

I support religious freedom. People should have the right to believe whatever they want as long as they don't shove it down other people's throat

[BADecker]

I support religious freedom. People should have the right to believe whatever they want as long as they don't shove it down other people's throat

You are talking about force-feeding, right? I hear that some prison personnel do that to prisoners who are protesting via a total fast for, sometimes, weeks.

[Beliathon]

I support religious freedom. People should have the right to believe whatever they want as long as they don't shove it down other people's throat

Does this include the extremely impressionable minds of young children (formative years / age 2-12) by parents? Or do all parents have a natural right to "mold" their children as they see fit?

Do you believe every child has a human right to master basic critical reasoning skills prior to any religious/nationalist indoctrination? Or does every parent have a right to decide how their offspring interpret the world?

Do you consider such indoctrination [lying to young children about the world before they've properly developed the ability to reason] to be intellectual abuse that is every bit as ethically repugnant as physical abuse?