Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[erikalui]

-snip

I know what the world is facing today because of religion and hence I just disregard this term. There are no atheists or theists in life but only Good and Bad people. While I love and respect the former, I dislike the latter. What kind of a person are you?

The underlying implication here must be atheists are bad. Most of the people that were defined as "bad", were defined by a set of ignorant rules, that were set by various religions.

Read the statement again: There are no atheists or theists in life but only Good and Bad people.

When did I call atheists "bad"? You just interpreted the statement as you wanted to. You cannot be good if you are an atheist or bad if you are an atheist. You just have not to believe in doing wrong to others irrespective of your belief.

I guess atheists must be not believing in God right? That again is a belief that God doesn't exist. There's nothing wrong in that belief but just be a Good person if you believe in humanity. I don't generalize good or bad people based on their religion or their ignorant rules because there are many who believe in nothing but doing bad to others.

I know a person who doesn't believe in God and is an atheist but he believes in killing human beings and he killed a person because the person was mentally unstable and dropped his paint bottle. He kept beating him up till he died bleeding on the stairs. No person whether or not they believe in God helped the person while dying. Now what's wrong in the belief? It was because that person who killed the other one was BAD. He believed in killing others and hence his belief of God not existing did not help in anyways.

I also know a person whose mother is a firm believer of God. Her son hung a child of 1 and a half year old on the fan because he was crying. Where did his mother's belief help in that case? Did his religion tell him to hang that innocent child on the fan? He was a BAD person and hence committed a crime.

One just cannot claim that atheists are good or bad and theists are good or bad. They want to do good/bad and hence they do it.


@cryptodevil: I don't wish to argue with you anymore as neither I can understand you, nor you can understand me. I condemned you because you abused me earlier with the F word but I guess you love using such words so go ahead as that gives you peace. The fact that you aren't sorry for the F word, it proves what kind of a person are you. I still won't abuse you no matter you use 1000s of such words because of my upbringing and education. I am still talking to you politely.

I am superstitious, I accept it, as I believe in God that I haven't seen in my life. " good people to do evil things, that takes religion." OK. I believe that person who was an atheist was supposed to be a good person earlier but he turned evil without any religion.

[1713953333]

1713953333

[1713953333]

1713953333

[1713953333]

1713953333

[1713953333]

1713953333

[1713953333]

1713953333

[1713953333]

1713953333

[the joint]

+1, David Hume and Kant had similar views. Humans are rational beings, believing in a "god" without any objective reason(Evidence) to is irrational, and disregards the entire concept of having the ability to reason and think. Theists are quite possibly the dumbest people on the planet. It's almost as if they "want" to give away their ability to reason, like mindless zombies.

I think you missed some of what Hume stated, however.  If Hume concluded that "believing in a 'god' without any [evidence]...is irrational," then he contradicted himself.

Hume rightfully pointed out that Empiricism, and therefore Science, have non-empirical, unscientific foundations.  Specifically, the assumptions that give the Scientific Method validity are entirely philosophical, e.g. how the rules of sound inference and knowledge of the limitations of inductive reasoning give validity to the assumption that we live in a Positivistic Universe, an assumption that is absolutely required for Science to work at all, and for which there is both no evidence nor a means of empirical falsification.

With regards to religion, Hume would say that a lack of evidence is not a strong enough basis (actually, it carries no weight whatsoever) to reject theism specifically because one who does would also be forced to reject the epistemological underpinnings of science itself.  Yes, it is true there is no physical evidence for God, but because there is also no physical evidence for the validity of the scientific method, then we must defer back to Philosophy to establish the validity/invalidity of both. In other words, if one can make a total scientific departure to validate scientific epistemology (note: Science is merely a philosophical subset), then why cannot one make the same departure for theism?

On a side note, it's my personal observation that the unbelievably-vast majority of religious debates are a priori invalid for the aforementioned reasons.  Atheists make bullshit claims that it is silly to believe in God due to a lack of evidence (claims which are often supported by equally-bullshit analogies like the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot which hold no weight whatsoever), and then theists, thinking that these invalid arguments are actually credible, entertain them and provide bullshit rebuttals by hopelessly trying to cite evidence that supports the existence of God.

When it comes down to it, religious debates set in an empirical context are invalid and a waste of time, and people just spew a bunch of hot air.

You're just interpreting this for your own argument. Did you base your information off of Google?  I actually have partially studies Hume and I have a book lying next to me.
Even though he wrote a lot about religion, his views seem a bit unclear. This is why it is open to interpretation. He stance was agnostic and skeptical. I'm not sure why people brought him up, he was definitely not an atheist. He did claim that reason is not up to the task to be the only guide in our life.
Believing in this "god" is irrational. I'm talking about the "gods" from the current religions. Theists are very deluded.

-snip

I know what the world is facing today because of religion and hence I just disregard this term. There are no atheists or theists in life but only Good and Bad people. While I love and respect the former, I dislike the latter. What kind of a person are you?

The underlying implication here must be atheists are bad. Most of the people that were defined as "bad", were defined by a set of ignorant rules, that were set by various religions.

I pulled this from a combination of .edu and other credible sources.  It's set in the context of his commentary on the Problem of Induction.  My point in referencing his comments wasn't in any way to discuss his personal religious beliefs, which are irrelevant to the discussion, anyway.  Rather, it was simply to correct the poster's statements that it is irrational to believe in something without physical evidence.  Adhering to this point of view must also lead one to the conclusion that it is irrational to believe in the validity of scientific epistemology.

To reach a conclusion that "believing in 'this' god is irrational" requires a philosophical basis.  Because science is a mere philosophical subset, it isn't good enough to assume it has the final say.  We need to defer to Philosophy in a broader sense to determine whether there is a way to determine what is and what is not logically necessary.  If there is a philosophical basis by you can conclude God is logically impossible, or even that it impossible to know whether God exists, then you are free to make that conclusion.  However, the reverse seems to be true, i.e. Intelligent Design is a logical necessity for reality's existence.

[irfan_pak10]

I invite Atheist to watch this video if they have time or when they get time, Recommended.

Scientific Facts Atheists Must Know Why Islam Is The Truth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJzIm9v67w8

So you call a Muslim to tell me why Islam is the Truth? 
How about a tl;dr version. The video is too long. I don't feel like wasting time on "scientific facts".

Yes He is Muslim, But he spoke with Reference you can check Bible chapter 1 to prove whether he is wrong or right? If you found that he wrong then let me inform here.

[RodeoX]

Also why do Christians hate dogs? My former neighbor was a Christian dog hater, classic. Why all the hate for dogs?

[erikalui]

Also why do Christians hate dogs? My former neighbor was a Christian dog hater, classic. Why all the hate for dogs?

I know of Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Parsi and atheists also who hate dogs.

They hate dogs as they can't bear animals to be innocent and good in heart as they can never be good at heart. They hate dogs as dogs don't have a mind to think evil unlike them. They hate dogs because they love nobody except themselves. 

[Lauda]

I pulled this from a combination of .edu and other credible sources.  It's set in the context of his commentary on the Problem of Induction.  My point in referencing his comments wasn't in any way to discuss his personal religious beliefs, which are irrelevant to the discussion, anyway.  Rather, it was simply to correct the poster's statements that it is irrational to believe in something without physical evidence.  Adhering to this point of view must also lead one to the conclusion that it is irrational to believe in the validity of scientific epistemology.

To reach a conclusion that "believing in 'this' god is irrational" requires a philosophical basis.  Because science is a mere philosophical subset, it isn't good enough to assume it has the final say.  We need to defer to Philosophy in a broader sense to determine whether there is a way to determine what is and what is not logically necessary.  If there is a philosophical basis by you can conclude God is logically impossible, or even that it impossible to know whether God exists, then you are free to make that conclusion.  However, the reverse seems to be true, i.e. Intelligent Design is a logical necessity for reality's existence.

I see. Could you please clearly state your stance towards the topic? I do not want to be mistaken. I concur; currently there is nothing that is good nor developed enough to have a final say in things.

Yes He is Muslim, But he spoke with Reference you can check Bible chapter 1 to prove whether he is wrong or right? If you found that he wrong then let me inform here.

Without a tl;dr version I'm not going to do anything.

Also why do Christians hate dogs? My former neighbor was a Christian dog hater, classic. Why all the hate for dogs?

I know of Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Parsi and atheists also who hate dogs.

They hate dogs as they can't bear animals to be innocent and good in heart as they can never be good at heart. They hate dogs as dogs don't have a mind to think evil unlike them. They hate dogs because they love nobody except themselves.  

Are you referring to dogs loving nobody except themselves? If this is the case, then this is wrong.
Or are you referring to the people?

[RodeoX]

Also why do Christians hate dogs? My former neighbor was a Christian dog hater, classic. Why all the hate for dogs?

I know of Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Parsi and atheists also who hate dogs.

They hate dogs as they can't bear animals to be innocent and good in heart as they can never be good at heart. They hate dogs as dogs don't have a mind to think evil unlike them. They hate dogs because they love nobody except themselves. 

Ah, so what your saying is that we are all capable of great love and hate because that is what humans can do? And just as only some Christians hate dogs, some atheists see religion as a positive social force?  Makes sense to me.

[erikalui]

Are you referring to dogs loving nobody except themselves? If this is the case, then this is wrong.

I'm referring to the people  

Ah, so what your saying is that we are all capable of great love and hate because that is what humans can do? And just as only some Christians hate dogs, some atheists see religion as a positive social force?  Makes sense to me.

Yeah, makes sense to me too. I haven't criticized atheists for their belief but just criticized those who abuse others because of their belief.

[cryptodevil]

@cryptodevil: I don't wish to argue with you anymore as neither I can understand you, nor you can understand me.

I understand you perfectly well and I have conveyed sufficient proof of that understanding so, no, you can't lump me in with your ignorance as an excuse to duck out of the challenge.

I condemned you because you abused me earlier with the F word but I guess you love using such words so go ahead as that gives you peace. The fact that you aren't sorry for the F word, it proves what kind of a person are you.

No it only proves what kind of person you think I am, big fucking difference.

I am superstitious, I accept it, as I believe in God that I haven't seen in my life. " good people to do evil things, that takes religion." OK. I believe that person who was an atheist was supposed to be a good person earlier but he turned evil without any religion.

Yeah, you seem to struggle to be able to comprehend basic reasoning, which isn't much of a surprise given you are a theist, but let me give you a little pointer, if good person does something evil, then he isn't a good person. Do you get it now?

[irfan_pak10]

Can Any one tell me
Why Islam is fastest GROWING RELIGION?
10% of Europe will be Muslim in around 30 years?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/muslim-population-growth-christians-religion-pew

[cryptodevil]

Can Any one tell me
Why Islam is fastest GROWING RELIGION?
10% of Europe will be Muslim in around 30 years?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/muslim-population-growth-christians-religion-pew

I'll take this one!

Ummm . . . is it because the brain-washing symbolic rituals are carried out far more intensely and regularly than with any other religion?

BTW, if 10% of the EU will be Muslim in 30 years, 70% will be atheists. It's called education.

[irfan_pak10]

Can Any one tell me
Why Islam is fastest GROWING RELIGION?
10% of Europe will be Muslim in around 30 years?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/muslim-population-growth-christians-religion-pew

I'll take this one!

Ummm . . . is it because the brain-washing symbolic rituals are carried out far more intensely and regularly than with any other religion?

BTW, if 10% of the EU will be Muslim in 30 years, 70% will be atheists. It's called education.

your reason is too illogical, what do you mean by Brain washing? who did this brain washing?

[RodeoX]

Can Any one tell me
Why Islam is fastest GROWING RELIGION?
10% of Europe will be Muslim in around 30 years?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/muslim-population-growth-christians-religion-pew

My best guess.
Islam is the most modern religion in many ways. In the last 2000 years there has been a shift toward more power for the individual. It has led to a spread of democracy and a movement away from dogmatic religion. Islam does not have priests, just people and God. Prior to the Romanization of Christianity it was also a liberation theocracy. I wonder if it was supplanted because of the addition of official state dogma by the Romans and the following kings of Europe.

[erikalui]

Yeah, you seem to struggle to be able to comprehend basic reasoning, which isn't much of a surprise given you are a theist, but let me give you a little pointer, if good person does something evil, then he isn't a good person. Do you get it now?

@bold: What should I say now when you have said what I feel and what I was trying to say for such a long time?

[cryptodevil]

your reason is too illogical, what do you mean by Brain washing? who did this brain washing?

Most Xtians are actually fairly open to the idea that they might be wrong, once exposed to the 'evil' that is objective reasoning and critical thinking. Muslims, however, are rarely found to even be willing to consider anything other than the fact that their particular brand of 'special' is absolutely and without doubt the 'One True Religion'(tm).

Their unwillingness to even accept when their dogma is successfully challenged is likely behind statistics that show fewer Islamic adherents losing their religion, when compared to other theists. This unwillingness requires a particularly high degree of willful ignorance, the kind that can only be achieved through conditioning a people by way of frequent regular prayer ritual.

Think of the Ultra-Orthodox Jews, the kind that bob rapidly backwards and forwards at the 'Wailing Wall' whilst reciting their magic words over and over again. That kind of conditioning is hard to shift, truly sticky brain-washing.

Islam is the most modern religion in many ways.

Sure, as long as you absolutely ignore EVERY OTHER FUCKING RELIGION that has been created since the sixth century. Scientology, anyone?

[the joint]

I pulled this from a combination of .edu and other credible sources.  It's set in the context of his commentary on the Problem of Induction.  My point in referencing his comments wasn't in any way to discuss his personal religious beliefs, which are irrelevant to the discussion, anyway.  Rather, it was simply to correct the poster's statements that it is irrational to believe in something without physical evidence.  Adhering to this point of view must also lead one to the conclusion that it is irrational to believe in the validity of scientific epistemology.

To reach a conclusion that "believing in 'this' god is irrational" requires a philosophical basis.  Because science is a mere philosophical subset, it isn't good enough to assume it has the final say.  We need to defer to Philosophy in a broader sense to determine whether there is a way to determine what is and what is not logically necessary.  If there is a philosophical basis by you can conclude God is logically impossible, or even that it impossible to know whether God exists, then you are free to make that conclusion.  However, the reverse seems to be true, i.e. Intelligent Design is a logical necessity for reality's existence.

I see. Could you please clearly state your stance towards the topic? I do not want to be mistaken. I concur; currently there is nothing that is good nor developed enough to have a final say in things.

I'm saying a few things:

1)  Debate about God's existence cannot be about whether there is or is not physical evidence for His existence, lest it be invalid.  In the same way we defer to broader Philosophy to explore and comment upon the assumptions of Science that fall outside the scope of Empiricism, so, too, we must also defer to broader Philosophy to explore and comment upon God, an entity that by common definition/assumption also falls outside the scope of Empiricism.

2) Hume's personal religious beliefs are irrelevant. However, he is correct about the limitations of inductive reasoning and scientific epistemology, specifically in his acknowledgment of its philosophical foundations.  The implications of his commentary are all-too-often shrugged off by empiricists as impractical of consideration.  This is a huge mistake.

3) Any person who claims it is silly to believe in God without physical evidence is a hypocrite if he also believes that scientific epistemology is valid.

4) There is a correct way to approach a debate about God's existence.  Specifically, the question is one of whether God is logically implicated, logically impossible, or if it is simply impossible to know whether such a thing exists.

5) I personally think that belief in God is rational because He is logically necessary.  Specifically, I believe God exists inasmuch as Intelligent Design is the necessary mechanism by which reality exists, and I believe Intelligent Design exists inasmuch as reality is demonstrably a mental construct.

[CoinFoxs]

Can Any one tell me
Why Islam is fastest GROWING RELIGION?
10% of Europe will be Muslim in around 30 years?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/muslim-population-growth-christians-religion-pew

My best guess.
Islam is the most modern religion in many ways. In the last 2000 years there has been a shift toward more power for the individual. It has led to a spread of democracy and a movement away from dogmatic religion. Islam does not have priests, just people and God. Prior to the Romanization of Christianity it was also a liberation theocracy. I wonder if it was supplanted because of the addition of official state dogma by the Romans and the following kings of Europe.

Yeah May be this could be also in one the reasons:

Concerning to "The Almanac Book of Facts", the population increased 137% within the past decade and the Christianity increased 46%, while Islam increased 235%.

100,000 people per year in America alone, are converting to Islam. For every 1 male convert to Islam 4 females convert to Islam, Why?

1. The Bible Convicts Women as the original Sinners, (ie. Eve picking from the forbidden tree){Genesis 2:4-3:24}. The Koran Clarifies it was Adam Not Eve {Qur'an 7:19-25}
2. The Bible says "The Birth of a Daughter is a loss" {Ecclesiasticus 22:3}. The Qur'an says both are an Equal Blessing { Qur'an 42:49}
3. The Bible Forbids Women from Speaking in church {I Corinthians 14:34-35}. The Qur'an says Women Can argue with the Prophet {58:1}
4. In the Bible, divorced Women are Labeled as an Adulteress, while men are not {Matthew 5:31-32}. The Koran does Not have Biblical double standards { Qur'an 30:21}
5. In The Bible, Widows and Sisters do Not Inherit Any Property or Wealth, Only men do{Numbers 27:1-11}The Koran Abolished this male greediness { Qur'an 4:22} and God Protects All.
6. The Bible Allows Multiple Wives{I Kings 11:3} In The Koran, God limits the number to 4 only under certain situations (with the Wife's permission)and Prefers you Marry Only One Wife{ Qur'an 4:3} The Koran gives the Woman the Right to Choose who to Marry.
7. "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" {Deuteronomy 22:28-30} One must ask a simple question here, who is really punished, the man who raped the woman or the woman who was raped? According to the Bible, you have to spend the Rest of Your Life with the man who Raped You. The Prophet Muhammad Says {Volume 9, Book
8, 6 Number 101} Narrated by Aisha:" It is essential to have the consent of a virgin (for the marriage)". Would the Christian men Reading this prefer the Women they know to Be Christian or Muslim?

And more

[jaysabi]

Islam is the most modern religion in many ways.

Sure, as long as you absolutely ignore EVERY OTHER FUCKING RELIGION that has been created since the sixth century. Scientology, anyone?

What is the metric by which you measure the degree of modernity in a religion? Is it how recently it was created, or the extent to which they believe in 'magic?' Scientology is more "modern" in the sense that it was created more recently, but I wouldn't consider their dogmatic beliefs any more modern than any other religion.

[RodeoX]

Islam is the most modern religion in many ways.

Sure, as long as you absolutely ignore EVERY OTHER FUCKING RELIGION that has been created since the sixth century. Scientology, anyone?

What is the metric by which you measure the degree of a modernity in religion? Is it how recently it was created, or the extent to which they believe in 'magic?' Scientology is more "modern" in the sense that it was created more recently, but I wouldn't consider their dogmatic beliefs any more modern than any other religion.

What I mean by modern is in comparison with ancient religions. I also think of Christianity as a modern religion. Early Christianity, like Islam, brought everyone into direct communication with God. By contrast most religions in the ancient world had a priestly class of rulers who told you what God thought. The message of the Christ was that God is the Father of all people. Rich and poor are held to the same standard and no person could overrule God.

This is a direct response to the Roman empire that ruled over everyone. It is a compelling idea that "I" matter to God even as I am nothing to the empire. Eventually the empire had to adopt Christianity or be overrun by it. when they did they wrote the Bible as a way of blending Christianity with Roman laws and sensibilities. As time went on the old ways of having a ruling priestly class returned. This made Islam a strong competitor in the "dark age" after the fall of Rome. At this point all that was left of the empire was the church. Not withstanding the reformation, it is the roots of the church we have today in Rome.

Islam took it further and said there will be no popes or priests. To be a Muslim you need only Believe in the Shahadah (basically monotheism), pray 5 times a day, Fast for Ramadan, Share what you have with others less fortunate, and if you can afford it you are required to make a pilgrimage to Mecca.  Beyond that there is not much weight placed on old stories from the bible or rituals.

Now because these are just the ideas of men there is a lot of debate inside and outside of Islam. Some love ritual and tradition while others not so much. But this focus on the individual is modern for me. Even though I mean modern since the ancient world. Those religions were brimming with ritual and obedience to rulers, who were often the Gods themselves.

Something like Scientology is a new "religion" and an interesting mix of psudo-science, science fiction, tax sheltering, and finally the worship of space ghosts from planet Zenu. Something for everyone. 

But it is just another mystical cult, more like the ancient ones IMO. 

[legendster]

Islam is the most modern religion in many ways.

Sure, as long as you absolutely ignore EVERY OTHER FUCKING RELIGION that has been created since the sixth century. Scientology, anyone?

What is the metric by which you measure the degree of a modernity in religion? Is it how recently it was created, or the extent to which they believe in 'magic?' Scientology is more "modern" in the sense that it was created more recently, but I wouldn't consider their dogmatic beliefs any more modern than any other religion.

What I mean by modern is .... blah blah blah...

This is what I think of Islam :

Hindu and Muslim can never Unite, If that possible they would have join before 1947 partition, Its called Two nation theory.

Muslim Rule over the subcontinent more than 800 year, And then British came and Muslim rule was over, And British rule was started. FIRST THE Indian were Under the MUSLIM and then Under the BRITISH rule. They have no problem. Muslim has the problem because they are the ruler, and rulers are now treated as slaves.

Irfan, I am going to make an insult/Joke about you and your country please dont take it seriously & be a sport.

Seriously which school did your parents sent you that your brain is so thoroughly washed - with some form of detergent - that you are actually calling a British India Map the Muslim India map ?? Please get your facts right. Please read on..


Get your hands & feet together folks I see an Indo Pak war coming.

 There is no Hindu there is no Muslim its plain and simple INDIAN.

In the ancient times people lived near the now dried up vedic Saraswati they werent Hindu, they didnt have rules, they didnt follow any other civiliztions but were expert traders.

Then we were part of the Haryanks and in a broader picture the Mahajanapads, the greatest empire of these 'Janapads' = Realm of the People ? It was the Magadh empire.

Then came the persians and the greeks, who returned back to their abodes when they were faced with the sheer logistical challenges of a military conquest in this peninsula.

Then throughout the classical age India was the land of the people whose majority were Hindu, and by majority I would say above 90%

It was during this classical time when the Mauryas rose & fell and with them spread the wings of India all across the south of Asia.
It was during this time when the age old tradition of cultivating wheat and the expanding wheat - farm lands spreading to the East and the west at an exponential rate; that the name 'Sone Ki Chirya' (The Golden Bird) was coined to India.

It wasnt until the early half 5th century, when the White Huns lead by Toramana invaded the North of Pakistan through the Afghan mountains, that Islam or any form of islam was introduced here. It was a short lived reign but converted enough Hindus to other religions like Tengri & Manichaeism, it basically opened up the possibility of conversion of Hindus to other religion which wasnt possible until now..

Much later in the 7th Century when Sindh (today's pakistan) was conquered by an invading Umayyadi Meccan army followed by the death of Muhammad. But even then this was isolated to the Northern part of the peninsula. While the rest of India was entering the late classical era, during which India and it's cultural influence spread further south east down through Sumatra and Indonesia.

The small muslim kingdoms formed during the Umayyadi crusades in the north were part of the Meccan caliphate but it's rulers were too unequipped to invade the rest of India.

Lets face it, Islam is the best religion for barbarian central asian tribes, who were among the early adopters of the religion. They could eat almost anything, they could have many wives, they got rid of the need of idols, anyone anywhere could just curl up and claim to be in a 'holy place' - which is good if you are a nomad and have no fixed place to live. Multiple wives just increases the reproduction efficiency and most importantly they could take anything from anyone because according their 'trollbook' the whole world is theirs to pillage.

AND they've been so successful at this craft of pillaging that they eventually dared to get into the heart of Delhi (Old Delhi) by the beginning of the 13th century and eventually set up the muslim rule in India by converting the general population into their own religion of Islam. But this was for 300 years not 800 The french, the Spanish the Portuguese and the Dutch started arriving by the 16th century and by the 17th Century the Britts.

In a way the britts were the first political unity this peninsula had seen in a long time.

But we shouldnt forget one fact. Religion is stupid. It is fake, it is a form of mind control, a form of herding the sheep. That sheep is the common man, every religion had one agenda and no it was not 'peace', it was the illusion of peace through fear and subjugation.

Hindu, muslim, sikh, Buddhists, Jains, Tengris (lol) all are and were ALWAYS Indians.
They just started believing in different imaginary concepts at different points in time thats all.


I get it how pathetic the common man in Pakistan today must feel that the founder of their country was nothing more than a delusional hateful old man, yes I m talking about Jinnah. Its high time my ancestral brothers stopped living in another man's delusion.

But lets steer back to the topic and find out why atheism is by nature against theism.