Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[Lauda]

I can agree that praying will make YOU feel better but it will not help anyone.
As said above, meditation should be the best way

Yes, meditation is the best way. I think everything that could make your mind be refresh is meditation. But, my meditation is praying. Everyone can take anything that he like to calm and strengthen himself, just choose the best.  

Here we go again. Please stop posting because you aren't making any sense and are very much deluded.
Mediation =/= praying.

Code:

Meditation is a practice in which an individual trains the mind or induces a mode of consciousness, 
either to realize some benefit or for the mind to simply acknowledge its content without becoming identified with that content, or as an end in itself.

Praying isn't that similar to meditation. It's up to the individual to choose, however he or she doesn't decide which one is the best. Stop living a subjective life. Although you see people quite often choosing the irrational path.

That's only what they want you to believe. It is quite hard to interpret ancient writings the way that suits the people. Belief in nature and the supernatural probably did; religions like Christianity did not.

The best thing in ancient writings is that you can interpret and explain it as you want.

Exactly. The interpretation could be completely wrong.

[the joint]

Because believing in something without evidence is idiotic.

All religions are nothing more than scams preying on stupid people.

Do you believe what your psychologist said to you? You see that's pretty much the same guesswork as the neolithic shaman's explanations about harmful of beneficial spirits .

Science has not uncovered the inner workings of a human brain so I take everything with a truck load of salt what a psychologist has to say (I don't even consider it real science yet).

The scientific method relies on available information and not idiotic beliefs. It is constantly evolving, scrutinized and does not stuck with dogmas.

Scientific *conclusions* rely on available empirical information.  The scientific method relies solely upon philosophical reasoning supporting empirical epistemology.

To this extent, the scientific method *does* rely upon belief, just not idiotic ones.  Specifically, it relies on the belief in the validity of logical inference as it relates to inductive reasoning.  This validity is established entirely by logic, and not by physical evidence whatsoever.

And there I'll play the english is not my native language card.

I only implied that there's a good reason why an "atheist" rejects religion. There is no religion which is not based on bullshit (I see we can agree on that). Science on the other hand is all about seeking more knowledge without underlying agendas, delusions or criminal intent.

It really comes down to how these react to unknowns.

Scientific example:

(first solar eclipse happening)

"hmm, WTF is happening, let's investigate to understand what is causing this phenomenon"

Religious:

(first solar eclipse happening)

"IT MUST BE IMAGINARY SKYWIZARDS DOING SHIT BECAUSE X MADE UP REASON, YOU'RE GOING TO BURN IN HELL IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE (waves hands)"

While you could say that science uses beliefs but they cannot be compared to religious delusions in their nature.

But you didn't imply that at all.  Saying that it is idiotic to believe in something without evidence is completely different from saying that an atheist has a good reason to not believe in religion.  These are two separate things.

Also, I would argue that Buddism in its purest form is anti-bullshit.  It even provides a replicable method to test some of its most fundamental claims.  This is somewhat beside the point, though.

[Hamuki]

I can agree that praying will make YOU feel better but it will not help anyone.
As said above, meditation should be the best way

Yes, meditation is the best way. I think everything that could make your mind be refresh is meditation. But, my meditation is praying. Everyone can take anything that he like to calm and strengthen himself, just choose the best.  

Here we go again. Please stop posting because you aren't making any sense and are very much deluded.
Mediation =/= praying.

Code:

Meditation is a practice in which an individual trains the mind or induces a mode of consciousness, 
either to realize some benefit or for the mind to simply acknowledge its content without becoming identified with that content, or as an end in itself.

Praying isn't that similar to meditation. It's up to the individual to choose, however he or she doesn't decide which one is the best. Stop living a subjective life. Although you see people quite often choosing the irrational path.

That's only what they want you to believe. It is quite hard to interpret ancient writings the way that suits the people. Belief in nature and the supernatural probably did; religions like Christianity did not.

The best thing in ancient writings is that you can interpret and explain it as you want.

Exactly. The interpretation could be completely wrong.

Praying.. In hope to gain something from something that does not exist.

Meditation.. Getting something from nothing.

[Falconer]

I can agree that praying will make YOU feel better but it will not help anyone.
As said above, meditation should be the best way

Yes, meditation is the best way. I think everything that could make your mind be refresh is meditation. But, my meditation is praying. Everyone can take anything that he like to calm and strengthen himself, just choose the best.  

Here we go again. Please stop posting because you aren't making any sense and are very much deluded.
Mediation =/= praying.

Code:

Meditation is a practice in which an individual trains the mind or induces a mode of consciousness, 
either to realize some benefit or for the mind to simply acknowledge its content without becoming identified with that content, or as an end in itself.

Praying isn't that similar to meditation. It's up to the individual to choose, however he or she doesn't decide which one is the best. Stop living a subjective life. Although you see people quite often choosing the irrational path.

That's only what they want you to believe. It is quite hard to interpret ancient writings the way that suits the people. Belief in nature and the supernatural probably did; religions like Christianity did not.

The best thing in ancient writings is that you can interpret and explain it as you want.

Exactly. The interpretation could be completely wrong.

Praying.. In hope to gain something from something that does not exist.

Meditation.. Getting something from nothing.

I pray to get strength to face all of my problems. But, the other people said that praying is the shortcut to success. As a example, there is a person who pray to get rich directly, but for me, I pray to stay strong in my job and work hardly, so I can get rich in my way.

[BADecker]

Praying.. In hope to gain something from something that does not exist.

Meditation.. Getting something from nothing.

I like that... getting something from nothing.

Before you came into existence, did you wish yourself into existence?

Consider your body. Where did it come from? You received it virtually free.

If you lost an arm in a car accident, and it was damaged so badly that it couldn't be repaired and reattached, where could you get another that was exactly the same or better? You probably couldn't. The best you might do is pay $millions for a bionic arm that was reasonably good, but never quite the same. Yet how much did your first arm cost you? Nothing!

Isn't life strange. Often the best in life comes to us for free, but the inferior things that we make often cost $millions.

Where do people get their life? It might seem that they get it from their parents. But in a person's own eyes and understanding, until he is taught that he received his life from his parents, he received it from nothing. Suddenly there was this whole universe created for him from nothing.

[Vod]

As a religion people, I keep my faith and pray to God to calming and strengthen my self when I got problem. I always giving thanks to God when I was blessed and got luck in my life. I think your opinion is not wrong, because every person has different perception about that. Other people used religion to control population, but for me, I used that to control myself. 

And it's perfectly OK for you to believe in a god.  We're just asking that you don't brainwash your vulnerable children before they are old enough to think for themselves. 

Don't be like BADecker - head in the sand forcing HIS god on other's beliefs.  That is just wrong and out dated.

Good luck to you friend! 

[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.  

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

No problem, and good clarification. I think the problem that bugs me the most, is that this "margin-of-error" attached to conclusions derived from the Scientific Method is inherently impossible to calculate (as far as I can tell).

I agree that certain things can be proven absolutely, I suppose certain mathematical proofs would be examples of a priori knowledge, and could be proven logically with no need for inductive reasoning? When I said "nothing can ever be proven" I meant things based on inductive reasoning (lazy writing from me).

You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.

Unfortunately it is the 'theist scientist' fallacy at play, namely, while they may understand that the scientific method is applicable to the working environment they are in, the same degree of rigorous standards are suspended when it comes to their theism because, you know, special pleading.

snip-

Hello the joint, I know you believe in a "god", and that metaphysical things exist. But can you explain to me why and how?

All identifiable, real things must self-apparently have an abstract basis.

The reason for this is that real things/reality are defined by metrics, which are abstract scales of measurement.

The most fundamental metric is binary.  A binary metric is fundamentally necessary in order for something to exist.  For example "1" vs. "0" or "yes" or "no" is a fundamental metric which allows us to assert something exists, which is distinguishable from non-existence.

Perception is the catalyst which invokes this primary metric, and reality is literally defined and affirmed to exist by it.  Without such a metric, there is nothing by which to differentiate betwee existence and non-existence, real and unreal.

Secondary metrics provide similar functions.  For example, after first distinguishing between space and not-space, we can invoke a secondary metric.  If we select a metric that can be divided infinitesimally, then space is continuous.  If we instead invoke a metric that cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space is discontinuous.  Neat, eh?

In the absence of such metrics, we can't assert reality to exist at all.  Born of these metrics, which differentiate between real objects and define them, are rational statements.  The root word of rationale is "ratio," and every rational statement is one describing a relationship between real objects.  Because logic is a predicate for truth, and because any logical statement is a rational statement, truth only takes the form of such relational statements; there is no truth relevant of consideration outside these rational statements.

So, without metrics, we can't even begin to explore what's true and what isn't.  Metrics differentiate between things, thereby setting a ratio between them and allowing us to form true, rational statements about them.  Because metrics are self-descriptively invoked by an [intelligent] mind, and because all real definition is a product of these metrics, Intelligent Design is the necessary mechanism by which reality is created/defined.

This is interesting stuff. I'd be lying if I said I understood it all, but I would like to question your final point.

I think I agree on everything up to that. If I'm understanding correctly, metrics are inherently abstract because they rely on perception to exist. Even if you had a perfect machine which used the binary metric to ask whether something existed or not, the result must be perceived by a "mind", so even this binary metric is abstract.

On to your last paragraph. Now, I agree that "metrics are self-descriptively invoked by an intelligent mind, and that all real definition is a product of these metrics", but why should that mean that "Intelligent Design is the necessary mechanism by which reality is created/defined."?

Why is it not possible that, for example, reality always existed, and the metrics that we use to define it are of our own making? Or in other words, why should our logical definition of reality have anything to do with how it was created? Just because we need metrics to understand reality, why does that mean that said reality has to have an Intelligent Designer using the same metrics?

(sorry, finding it hard to explain myself...  )

[Lauda]

Praying.. In hope to gain something from something that does not exist.

Meditation.. Getting something from nothing.

I pray to get strength to face all of my problems. But, the other people said that praying is the shortcut to success. As a example, there is a person who pray to get rich directly, but for me, I pray to stay strong in my job and work hardly, so I can get rich in my way.

That's is wrong and doesn't work (rich case). Have you people not been taught properly? Even I, who consider myself somewhere partially agnostic and an atheist know that. No, I don't have hate religions though.
Praying does have some physiological benefits, but meditation has physical ones (changes in the brain that are quite helpful).

[Vod]

I pray to get strength to face all of my problems. But, the other people said that praying is the shortcut to success. As a example, there is a person who pray to get rich directly, but for me, I pray to stay strong in my job and work hardly, so I can get rich in my way.

Sounds to me like you are lazy and want things handed to you.  You want strength?  Go work out (physical) or mediate (mental).

Two working hands can accomplish more than a million clasped in prayer.

[the joint]

No problem, and good clarification. I think the problem that bugs me the most, is that this "margin-of-error" attached to conclusions derived from the Scientific Method is inherently impossible to calculate (as far as I can tell).

I agree that certain things can be proven absolutely, I suppose certain mathematical proofs would be examples of a priori knowledge, and could be proven logically with no need for inductive reasoning? When I said "nothing can ever be proven" I meant things based on inductive reasoning (lazy writing from me).

The margin-of-error can only be calculated based upon the number of trials.  If I've been alive for 3,000 days and the sun hasn't exploded yet, then based upon 3,000 "trials" I can predict with very high statistical confidence that the sun will not explode tomorrow due to a very small margin-of-error.  Of course, that confidence does no good if the sun goes nova tomorrow.  The margin-of-error exists specifically because you always have access to a limited data set.  The margin-of-error could be eliminated completely if you somehow had knowledge of all trials that ever were, are, and ever will be, but obviously we don't have this ability.

And correct, mathematical proofs are fully abstract, internally consistent, and (at least) to that extent, sound.  Whether or not (and how) they actually apply to physical reality is another issue.  But regardless, they constitute 'a priori' knowledge and are knowable at a 100% level of confidence, without any margin-of-error.

This is interesting stuff. I'd be lying if I said I understood it all, but I would like to question your final point.

I think I agree on everything up to that. If I'm understanding correctly, metrics are inherently abstract because they rely on perception to exist. Even if you had a perfect machine which used the binary metric to ask whether something existed or not, the result must be perceived by a "mind", so even this binary metric is abstract.

On to your last paragraph. Now, I agree that "metrics are self-descriptively invoked by an intelligent mind, and that all real definition is a product of these metrics", but why should that mean that "Intelligent Design is the necessary mechanism by which reality is created/defined."?

Why is it not possible that, for example, reality always existed, and the metrics that we use to define it are of our own making? Or in other words, why should our logical definition of reality have anything to do with how it was created? Just because we need metrics to understand reality, why does that mean that said reality has to have an Intelligent Designer using the same metrics?

(sorry, finding it hard to explain myself...  )

Yes, your understanding is basically correct, and also correct about the "perfect machine."  Sensory technology seems to function as a 2nd-order observer.  In the double-slit experiment of quantum mechanics, the suggestive collapse of the wave function occurred in the presence of both human and technological observers.

Your question about whether Intelligent Design is the "necessary" mechanism by which reality is created/defined is fantastic.  You are correct to imply that conclusion didn't necessarily follow.

The best model one can theoretically come up with to explain something must meet a few criteria:  It must 1) Be internally consistent, 2) Comprehensively and soundly explain all information it attempts to do so, and 3) Introduce the fewest number of assumptions, ideally zero.  Falsification of the model can happen on two levels.  At a lower level, the model can be rendered internally invalid if new information is introduced which should be explained by it, but isn't.  At a higher level, the model can be rendered externally invalid if another model, which is broader in its scope, not only explains all information in the original model, but synthesizes this knowledge with other information unexplained by the original model (the result being a deeper understanding which predicates any topological understanding).

That being said, could reality have "always existed," independent of metrics?  From an empirical perspective, maybe, but there's no possible way to know without introducing some unnecessary assumptions.  This actually gets right back to the Positivistic Universe assumption, as your question yields to the same impossible means of empirical falsification, i.e. you would need to somehow collect metric data via observation in a Universe totally void of observers and metrics.  What we do know, however, is that the data suggest that in 100% of cases where reality has been affirmed to exist, perception and metrics were present, and in exactly 0 cases has reality been affirmed to exist in the absence of perception and metrics.  That's why the Positivistic Universe assumption exists in the first place; it's as practical to adhere to this assumption as it is to assume the sun won't go nova tomorrow.

From a philosophical perspective, no lol, reality could not have existed independent of metrics.  One reason is we have the sameness-in-difference tautology of logic to turn to, which states that all relational entities must necessarily reduce to a common medium.  Because what is real and unreal are relational entities, it follows they, too, reduce to a common medium.  Metrics axiomatically create the distinction between real and unreal according to a simple difference metric (i.e. 1 vs. 0).  No metric --> no distinction between what's real and unreal.

[celestio]

the joint, isn't empiricism the basis of metaphysics? After all, without our brain and subsequent five senses, there'd be no way of even coming up with metaphysical ideas.

Do you agree with Descartes or David Hume?

[the joint]

the joint, isn't empiricism the basis of metaphysics? After all, without our brain and subsequent five senses, there'd be no way of even coming up with metaphysical ideas.

Do you agree with Descartes or David Hume?

There's a difference between asking whether empiricism is the basis of metaphysics, and asking whether something empirical is the basis of metaphysics.

Empiricism is just a theory of knowledge acquisition, i.e. the theory that any and all knowledge is gained through sensory experience.  Metaphysics differs from classical physics in that it does not control for observation, and therefore there can be no direct metaphysical 'evidence.'

To that extent, if you are an empiricist, you would probably reach the conclusion that something empirical, i.e. the brain and sensory organs, gives rise to the type of abstract thinking required for metaphysical ideas. 

If you are a metaphysicist (ultimately, not practically), you might reject the Positivistic Universe assumption and consider that the brain and sensory organs might not exist mutually exclusive from that which perceives it, and thus may be affected by it.

But regardless of whether you adopt an empirical or metaphysical view of reality, the fact remains that all we are doing is tossing around ideas according to logical rules to build better and better theories.  We are limited to ideas and the rules they obey.  We have no choice but to regard the rules of logic as absolutely unbreakable and foolproof, because it is the only means by which we have cognitive understanding of anything that makes sense.

The concluding point is that this means that all we can do is create an understanding of things as it relates to our mind.  Talking about reality independent of mind is beyond our cognitive capability.

With regards to Descartes and Hume, could you be a little more specific?

[celestio]

the joint, isn't empiricism the basis of metaphysics? After all, without our brain and subsequent five senses, there'd be no way of even coming up with metaphysical ideas.

Do you agree with Descartes or David Hume?

There's a difference between asking whether empiricism is the basis of metaphysics, and asking whether something empirical is the basis of metaphysics.

Empiricism is just a theory of knowledge acquisition, i.e. the theory that any and all knowledge is gained through sensory experience.  Metaphysics differs from classical physics in that it does not control for observation, and therefore there can be no direct metaphysical 'evidence.'

To that extent, if you are an empiricist, you would probably reach the conclusion that something empirical, i.e. the brain and sensory organs, gives rise to the type of abstract thinking required for metaphysical ideas.  

If you are a metaphysicist (ultimately, not practically), you might reject the Positivistic Universe assumption and consider that the brain and sensory organs might not exist mutually exclusive from that which perceives it, and thus may be affected by it.

But regardless of whether you adopt an empirical or metaphysical view of reality, the fact remains that all we are doing is tossing around ideas according to logical rules to build better and better theories.  We are limited to ideas and the rules they obey.  We have no choice but to regard the rules of logic as absolutely unbreakable and foolproof, because it is the only means by which we have cognitive understanding of anything that makes sense.

The concluding point is that this means that all we can do is create an understanding of things as it relates to our mind.  Talking about reality independent of mind is beyond our cognitive capability.

With regards to Descartes and Hume, could you be a little more specific?

Interesting, is your believe in an intelligent designer "absolute", so you believe it to be an absolute truth according to logic?

Just in their ideals, Hume was more of an empiricist, Descartes believed in the mind separate from the body/brain.

[Benjig]

Real Atheists, not the ones who like to call themselves atheists for fun, always has a good proof-based explanation for it, I believe Religion makes them feel like being inside a Petri dish, or they notice that religion is like walking with a cloth on the eyes. But even whith all the disadvantages a religion may have, I think mankind would be chaos without having something to believe...

[Vod]

Real Atheists, not the ones who like to call themselves atheists for fun, always has a good proof-based explanation for it, I believe Religion makes them feel like being inside a Petri dish, or they notice that religion is like walking with a cloth on the eyes. But even whith all the disadvantages a religion may have, I think mankind would be chaos without having something to believe...

You'd be amazed at the peace of mind you get when you realize you don't have to believe in anything.  You can just exist. 

[the joint]

Real Atheists, not the ones who like to call themselves atheists for fun, always has a good proof-based explanation for it, I believe Religion makes them feel like being inside a Petri dish, or they notice that religion is like walking with a cloth on the eyes. But even whith all the disadvantages a religion may have, I think mankind would be chaos without having something to believe...

You'd be amazed at the peace of mind you get when you realize you don't have to believe in anything.  You can just exist. 

Oh fine, fine, take the easy way out 

Shortcuttin' son-of-a...

[cryptodevil]

But even whith all the disadvantages a religion may have, I think mankind would be chaos without having something to believe...

I believe Vod has clearly asserted the truth in that regards:

You'd be amazed at the peace of mind you get when you realize you don't have to believe in anything.  You can just exist. 

We don't need religious death-cults and their 'magical' symbolism and rituals to find joy in living. This video, for example, fills me with joy and wonder yet I am absolutely able to understand the principles of flight enough that there is no mystery behind what you are watching, but it is still awe inspiring.

No 'mysticism' needed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czy0pXRRZcs

"I am not playing with death. I am playing with life" - Yves Rossy (Jetman)

[Lauda]

Real Atheists, not the ones who like to call themselves atheists for fun, always has a good proof-based explanation for it, I believe Religion makes them feel like being inside a Petri dish, or they notice that religion is like walking with a cloth on the eyes. But even whith all the disadvantages a religion may have, I think mankind would be chaos without having something to believe...

This just proves my point. The main religions were created with that purpose of controlling the masses. The weaker minded fellows need someone to believe in; something that will make them push forward.

Oh fine, fine, take the easy way out  

Shortcuttin' son-of-a...

Definitely. Believing that a certain "someone" will help you in life and save you once you die is definitely the harder way.  

But even whith all the disadvantages a religion may have, I think mankind would be chaos without having something to believe...

I believe Vod has clearly asserted the truth in that regards:

You'd be amazed at the peace of mind you get when you realize you don't have to believe in anything.  You can just exist. 

We don't need religious death-cults and their 'magical' symbolism and rituals to find joy in living. This video, for example, fills me with joy and wonder yet I am absolutely able to understand the principles of flight enough that there is no mystery behind what you are watching, but it is still awe inspiring.

No 'mysticism' needed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czy0pXRRZcs
"I am not playing with death. I am playing with life" - Yves Rossy (Jetman)

I definitely agree on that. I even think life is better as one doesn't have any restrictions nor obligations that sometimes take up time.
Now tell me where to buy those jetpacks(?). Great video.

[Falconer]

That's is wrong and doesn't work (rich case). Have you people not been taught properly? Even I, who consider myself somewhere partially agnostic and an atheist know that. No, I don't have religions though.
Praying does have some physiological benefits, but meditation has physical ones (changes in the brain that are quite helpful).

Yes, I agree with your perception. 

Sounds to me like you are lazy and want things handed to you.  You want strength?  Go work out (physical) or mediate (mental).

Two working hands can accomplish more than a million clasped in prayer.

Oh surely I did my work too, not just pray. Sometimes there is a big problem that so hard to resolved by yourself, and you need a something that can calm yourself and make your mind be refresh. I named it praying. Maybe the other person have the way he like to help himself when facing a problem. 

[legendster]

I should start a VOD haters club / thread topic next time.