Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[the joint]

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.

Because the prefix "a" in this case means "not."  It's the inverse.

[1713427379]

1713427379

[1713427379]

1713427379

[protokol]

@thejoint, I really enjoy reading your posts. Re: what you said about the Scientific Method being, in essence, unproveable as it relies on some basic assumptions (such as a positivistic Universe). It's a thought provoking point, and I agree entirely.

I am quite a skeptical person, and since I was young, I have used a sort-of "probability-based" way of understanding the world. I understand that nothing can be proved 100% one way or the other, but if something has overwhelming evidence that it exists (such as the force of gravity), then I "pretend" that it is 100% true. Equally, I find the concept of a God has so little evidence, that I "pretend" that it is 100% false, and call myself an atheist.

So, although I understand that the Scientific Method DOES make some philosophical assumptions in order to work, it seems that through repetition and empiricism it gives us a better idea of the world than anything else. Of course, this isn't strictly true (why should the number of repetitions make anything more certain if the universe isn't positivistic in the first place...)

Oh man, this is why I try not to think too deeply about this sort of shit, you get to a point and realize that nothing can ever be proven, your life is totally insignificant, you might not even exist and nothing is real. 

[Gyfts]

Atheists don't truly hate religion itself, I believe it's the people behind it. We all meet those crazy christians, or islamic extremists that take religion to another level. They make it revolve around their entire life and let it influence what they do on a daily basis. You can chose what you want to believe, but as far as hatred goes, I don't blame Atheists for hating religion because of the people behind it.

[protokol]

Yeah, I don't hate religion itself, or the concept of a god. I think it's silly, but I can see that it's useful for some people and can enrich their lives. What I don't like is when religion starts trying to control other aspects of society, such as individuals' rights, laws, and scientific progress. I also have a problem with religious people who try and "save" me, and mostly don't like their self-righteous attitude.

Hate is a strong word, I suppose I'd reserve my hate for any people who take these ideas to the extreme and destroy other people's lives in the process, for instance persecution of gays/non-believers, wars, torture and killing in the name of Religion. But I'm not really hating the religion here, just the crazy people who take it too seriously.

[BADecker]

Consider the definitions of the word "religion" from 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.

Idioms
9. get religion, Informal.

    to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
    to resolve to mend one's errant ways:
    The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

Note that not all the definitions have to do with some formal religion or named church or church body. Some of the definitions pertain to "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

The point is, if your personal religion includes allowing all kinds of other religions to exist, how can anyone get to the truth, since almost every human being has religion according to one or more of the definitions listed? If your religion is to allow all the others, what about allowing religions that don't allow yours?

You better draw a line in your personal religious beliefs. The line better say how far you are going to go in allowing other religions. If you don't, one of them might up and destroy you, because you allowed it and its violence to exist.

[mayflor2]

Even most religious people hate religion.    They hate religions that aren't their own.

[cryptodevil]

Real atheists don't care about religions. Why would you hate something you don't believe in?

Satanism doesn't approve of god, but you can't be a satanist without acknowledging that god exists.

Awesome logic. Works kinda like this, "Real(tm) people who have been vaccinated against the devastating and virulent mind-melting disease don't care about devastating mind-melting diseases".

Whilst, true, being atheist does not denote anything other than a rejection of the fallacious theist assertion, most atheists are intelligent enough to understand just how poisonous theism is and how much harm it causes to the human race, that they do care about it enough to want to help those who are afflicted with it to be able to free their minds from the toxin by way of encouraging them to learn about objective reasoning and critical thinking. That way they can see for themselves the reality of the situation, rather than just being told to believe something, which is the disease vector of theist dogma.

[the joint]

@thejoint, I really enjoy reading your posts. Re: what you said about the Scientific Method being, in essence, unproveable as it relies on some basic assumptions (such as a positivistic Universe). It's a thought provoking point, and I agree entirely.

I am quite a skeptical person, and since I was young, I have used a sort-of "probability-based" way of understanding the world. I understand that nothing can be proved 100% one way or the other, but if something has overwhelming evidence that it exists (such as the force of gravity), then I "pretend" that it is 100% true. Equally, I find the concept of a God has so little evidence, that I "pretend" that it is 100% false, and call myself an atheist.

So, although I understand that the Scientific Method DOES make some philosophical assumptions in order to work, it seems that through repetition and empiricism it gives us a better idea of the world than anything else. Of course, this isn't strictly true (why should the number of repetitions make anything more certain if the universe isn't positivistic in the first place...)

Oh man, this is why I try not to think too deeply about this sort of shit, you get to a point and realize that nothing can ever be proven, your life is totally insignificant, you might not even exist and nothing is real.  

First, thanks

A slight clarification on the positivistic Universe assumption:  This assumption is used specifically because it controls for the observer in data collection.  By controlling for the observer, we can make "objective" claims about one thing in relation to some other thing(s).  This is perfectly valid, but one must simply know its implications.  Accordingly, I'm not sure I would describe the Scientific Method as "unproveable."   It's perfectly valid and can lead to sound conclusions, but in this case, "sound" always has a margin-of-error attached to it.  

Tying to your last sentence, I think you can prove things in the absolute sense of the word.  There is no margin-of-error attached to our understanding of the limitations of inductive reasoning.  This constitutes 'a priori' knowledge, independent of experience, and there's a lot of it available to us.  For all relevant consideration, logic is a predicate for truth and not vice-versa.

And yeah, sometimes I need a break from it, too

[cryptodevil]

There are certainly some poisonous people in every religion, but they do not even live by the rules of their religion since every single religion condemns murder, theft, fraud, etc. - you have to be about as narrow-minded as a jihadist to call theism in general poisonous.

I see you're not exactly up to speed on what mainstream religious texts contain. Try actually reading them, most atheists are considerably more educated about the content of these toxic texts than the adherents to their dogma. Murder, rape, slavery, rape, incest - It's all in there, even if the apologists pretend it isn't or try to spin it another way by pretending it can be interpreted differently, it is actually pretty explicitly detailed.

So, with regards to your apologia about how the 'bad theists' don't 'live by the rules' of their religion, you're wrong. It is actually the 'good ones' that don't live by the rules of their religion.

Nice try on the usual, "Ah well militant atheists are just as narrow-minded as religious fundamentalists", it's almost as though you believe this series of words actually construct a reasonable assertion. I'll give you a little tip, they don't.

Religion poisons everything. Nothing 'good' can be done with religion that cannot be done equally as well without, unless you think you know better, fancy giving it a shot? Name me something positive and worthwhile which cannot be achieved without believing in invisible sky-fairies.

[Snail2]

This topic is a clear proof of the superiority of Tengrism . Clear, democratic and simple religion, no officials, no artificial rules, no "Bank of Shamans", no crap. I'd recommend it for the more spiritual kind of anarchists and direct democracy believers.
The best of all, if an atheist comes along and want to deny the existence of the Everlasting Blue Sky, the four winds and the stars that would be pretty funny .

[cryptodevil]

if an atheist comes along and want to deny the existence of the Everlasting Blue Sky, the four winds and the stars that would be pretty funny .

I'm not seeing the joke. The religion you cite still invokes the supernatural. It's not like atheists deny the existence of stone buildings which have altars in them, now, is it?

[deisik]

Real atheists don't care about religions. Why would you hate something you don't believe in?

Satanism doesn't approve of god, but you can't be a satanist without acknowledging that god exists.

Awesome logic. Works kinda like this, "Real(tm) people who have been vaccinated against the devastating and virulent mind-melting disease don't care about devastating mind-melting diseases".

In fact, they no longer care, once "vaccinated". Really, why should they? Most people don't think every now and then about smallpox since it had been eradicated from Earth...

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof

[cryptodevil]

In fact, they no longer care, once "vaccinated". Really, why should they? Most people don't think every now and then about smallpox since it had been eradicated from Earth...

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof

FFS, are you lot dense or what? The reason the 'man in the street' doesn't care about smallpox is because it actually has been, on the whole, eradicated. It isn't something that needs much thought in this day and age.

I was criticising the false assumption that atheists shouldn't care about theism because it doesn't concern them when the truth is theism is still infecting the masses all around us through the generational brain-washing of their offspring. The toxic dysfunction is all around us, that is why we still care about theism continuing to wreak the harm it does to our species.

[Snail2]

I'm not seeing the joke. The religion you cite still invokes the supernatural. It's not like atheists deny the existence of stone buildings which have altars in them, now, is it?

You have no sense of humour indeed, but of course, you are right on that .

BTW Tengri in it's most ancient and non-anthropomorphic form isn't really something supernatural, it's just the power of nature.

I always wanted to ask atheist how they can actually deny my very own personal subjective reality? ...and why is that good for them?

[deisik]

In fact, they no longer care, once "vaccinated". Really, why should they? Most people don't think every now and then about smallpox since it had been eradicated from Earth...

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof

FFS, are you lot dense or what? The reason the 'man in the street' doesn't care about smallpox is because it actually has been, on the whole, eradicated. It isn't something that needs much thought in this day and age.

I was criticising the false assumption that atheists shouldn't care about theism because it doesn't concern them when the truth is theism is still infecting the masses all around us through the generational brain-washing of their offspring. The toxic dysfunction is all around us, that is why we still care about theism continuing to wreak the harm it does to our species.

I don't see you making valid assumptions or drawing solid conclusions. If something doesn't concern you personally (and wouldn't in the future), you don't care about it. Otherwise you should care about everything which is impossible...

Who is dense actually?

[cryptodevil]

You have no sense of humour indeed,

That is yet another ignorant assumption masquerading as fact. You are the one who stated that it would be funny to see an atheist try to deny the existence of the 'Everlasting Blue Sky', when the fact is the religion you cite employs, like most religions, tangible things as symbolic representation of supernatural or paranormal elements of their belief system.

I simply pointed out that there wasn't actually anything funny about your statement, because your statement was disingenuously implying you had managed to cleverly assert a religious representation that an atheist could not deny the existence of.

BTW Tengri in it's most ancient and non-anthropomorphic form isn't really something supernatural, it's just the power of nature.

Clank, clunk, grind, clang . . .sure, you just keep on trying to make it fit, I'm sure it'll go in if you hit it hard enough, often enough.

I always wanted to ask atheist how they can actually deny my very own personal subjective reality? ...and why is that good for them?

Atheists don't deny your subjective reality, where do you get that idea? In fact atheism is pretty much about acknowledging the relevance of subjective realities in understanding just how unreliable every single claim towards 'spirituality' actually is.

I think you keep on taking too much rope, you appear to be getting awfully tangled up in it.

[Pentax]

<Why do Atheists hate Religion>

Both sides hate the other for the same reasons people hate positions that oppose what they consider core points of view.

If they're wrong, they're morons and they cannot reconcile that fact with their view of themselves as superior to the opposing point of view.

It's ego.

[cryptodevil]

In fact, they no longer care, once "vaccinated". Really, why should they? Most people don't think every now and then about smallpox since it had been eradicated from Earth...

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof

FFS, are you lot dense or what? The reason the 'man in the street' doesn't care about smallpox is because it actually has been, on the whole, eradicated. It isn't something that needs much thought in this day and age.

I was criticising the false assumption that atheists shouldn't care about theism because it doesn't concern them when the truth is theism is still infecting the masses all around us through the generational brain-washing of their offspring. The toxic dysfunction is all around us, that is why we still care about theism continuing to wreak the harm it does to our species.

I don't see you making valid assumptions or drawing solid conclusions. If something doesn't concern you personally (and wouldn't in the future), you don't care about it. Otherwise you should care about everything which is impossible...

Who is dense actually?

The initial assertion in your reply provides the answer to its latter question.

Do atheists currently live a world without the theism? No. We do not. Our lives are still blighted by the toxic poison that causes people to define their sense of self and their subsequent choices and decisions by way of a persistent delusional narrative they are living in, where they play the role of somebody 'special' to an all-powerful super-being. That's pretty fucked up.

Why don't you try asking gay couples who want to get married in US states that wish to maintain their prejudice and discrimination against them because the religious majority get to declare homosexual relationships as 'evil' and that marriage should only be permitted for those of opposite gender. Like that makes any rational sense outside of the insane ramblings of the religiots.

[cryptodevil]

they cannot reconcile that fact with their view of themselves as superior to the opposing point of view.

How can a person be superior to an opposing point of view?

Surely it would be that a presented position was superior to an opposing point of view due to it being able to survive critical analysis and be based on objective reasoning?

So, no, atheists don't hate religion because they believe themselves to be superior to the theist 'point of view', as that is clearly nonsense.

As has been discussed, atheists who hate religion, because not all do what with atheism simply being the rejection of the theist assertion on the basis it is groundless fallacy, hate it because of the fact it does nothing good that cannot be achieved equally well without religion and yet causes such an epic amount of toxic harm to us as individuals, a species and a society.

[Pentax]

they cannot reconcile that fact with their view of themselves as superior to the opposing point of view.

How can a person be superior to an opposing point of view?

Surely it would be that a presented position was superior to an opposing point of view due to it being able to survive critical analysis and be based on objective reasoning?

So, no, atheists don't hate religion because they believe themselves to be superior to the theist 'point of view', as that is clearly nonsense.

As has been discussed, atheists who hate religion, because not all do what with atheism simply being the rejection of the theist assertion on the basis it is groundless fallacy, hate it because of the fact it does nothing good that cannot be achieved equally well without religion and yet causes such an epic amount of toxic harm to us as individuals, a species and a society.

fine, superior to the other person who holds the opposing point of view.

it's ego on both sides of the equation.

I'm right, they're wrong.  I'm the smart guy.