Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[BADecker]

You believe in God or you believe nothing with all doubts which can not be solved by science.

Don't understand what you mean. However, anyone who believes in God believes in science, because God made all the things that are examined by science.

Much of modern science that does not accept God, offers non-scientific ideas and theories. That is, science that is provable suggests other science that is not provable. And in the eyes of a lot of people, it all is science, both the provable and the unproven.

[1713927681]

1713927681

[Hueristic]

I don't want Freedom OF religion, I want Freedom FROM religion.

-Confirmed Agnostic

Outside of your own personal religion of life and living, you have the ability to be free from any and all religions. The only way to get rid of your personal religion of life and living is to die (maybe become a vegetable).

Do you have any clue how wrong you are? Most laws are based on religious doctrine.

[BADecker]

I don't want Freedom OF religion, I want Freedom FROM religion.

-Confirmed Agnostic

Outside of your own personal religion of life and living, you have the ability to be free from any and all religions. The only way to get rid of your personal religion of life and living is to die (maybe become a vegetable).

Do you have any clue how wrong you are? Most laws are based on religious doctrine.

If a person has not harmed another or damaged his property, whatever laws are brought up against him in the courts, he can rebut those laws using his freedom of religion... of course, only if he holds to that personal religion. People don't do this, but they could and should.

[Hueristic]

I don't want Freedom OF religion, I want Freedom FROM religion.

-Confirmed Agnostic

Outside of your own personal religion of life and living, you have the ability to be free from any and all religions. The only way to get rid of your personal religion of life and living is to die (maybe become a vegetable).

Do you have any clue how wrong you are? Most laws are based on religious doctrine.

If a person has not harmed another or damaged his property, whatever laws are brought up against him in the courts, he can rebut those laws using his freedom of religion... of course, only if he holds to that personal religion. People don't do this, but they could and should.

You are arguing someone can do something against the law because of their religion beliefs but not that someone can do something because the laws religious rules are wrong. Do you see the difference?

[BADecker]

I don't want Freedom OF religion, I want Freedom FROM religion.

-Confirmed Agnostic

Outside of your own personal religion of life and living, you have the ability to be free from any and all religions. The only way to get rid of your personal religion of life and living is to die (maybe become a vegetable).

Do you have any clue how wrong you are? Most laws are based on religious doctrine.

If a person has not harmed another or damaged his property, whatever laws are brought up against him in the courts, he can rebut those laws using his freedom of religion... of course, only if he holds to that personal religion. People don't do this, but they could and should.

You are arguing someone can do something against the law because of their religion beliefs but not that someone can do something because the laws religious rules are wrong. Do you see the difference?

Not arguing yet. I don't understand what you are saying. Some religious rules and laws are not right. Some of your personal religious rules and laws of your personal religion are not right according to the personal rules and laws of somebody else and their religion.

[Hueristic]

I don't want Freedom OF religion, I want Freedom FROM religion.

-Confirmed Agnostic

Outside of your own personal religion of life and living, you have the ability to be free from any and all religions. The only way to get rid of your personal religion of life and living is to die (maybe become a vegetable).

Do you have any clue how wrong you are? Most laws are based on religious doctrine.

If a person has not harmed another or damaged his property, whatever laws are brought up against him in the courts, he can rebut those laws using his freedom of religion... of course, only if he holds to that personal religion. People don't do this, but they could and should.

You are arguing someone can do something against the law because of their religion beliefs but not that someone can do something because the laws religious rules are wrong. Do you see the difference?

Not arguing yet. I don't understand what you are saying. Some religious rules and laws are not right. Some of your personal religious rules and laws of your personal religion are not right according to the personal rules and laws of somebody else and their religion.

Arguing as in the term debating. I agree with your last post. Although I don't believe I hold any personal religious rules. And I refuse to live by others personal religious rules. But it is amusing that I have noted in many that they do not even notice that their opinion is based on their doctrine. Maybe mine is as well and I am as blind to the fact?

[BADecker]

I don't want Freedom OF religion, I want Freedom FROM religion.

-Confirmed Agnostic

Outside of your own personal religion of life and living, you have the ability to be free from any and all religions. The only way to get rid of your personal religion of life and living is to die (maybe become a vegetable).

Do you have any clue how wrong you are? Most laws are based on religious doctrine.

If a person has not harmed another or damaged his property, whatever laws are brought up against him in the courts, he can rebut those laws using his freedom of religion... of course, only if he holds to that personal religion. People don't do this, but they could and should.

You are arguing someone can do something against the law because of their religion beliefs but not that someone can do something because the laws religious rules are wrong. Do you see the difference?

Not arguing yet. I don't understand what you are saying. Some religious rules and laws are not right. Some of your personal religious rules and laws of your personal religion are not right according to the personal rules and laws of somebody else and their religion.

Arguing as in the term debating. I agree with your last post. Although I don't believe I hold any personal religious rules. And I refuse to live by others personal religious rules. But it is amusing that I have noted in many that they do not even notice that their opinion is based on their doctrine. Maybe mine is as well and I am as blind to the fact?

If you strongly believe that you don't have any religious rules, and you firmly believe you don't have any religion, and you think about it regularly, and you adamantly stand up and say it now and again, you have the religion of not having a religion. Definition #6 at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t says: "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

[Hueristic]

I don't want Freedom OF religion, I want Freedom FROM religion.

-Confirmed Agnostic

Outside of your own personal religion of life and living, you have the ability to be free from any and all religions. The only way to get rid of your personal religion of life and living is to die (maybe become a vegetable).

Do you have any clue how wrong you are? Most laws are based on religious doctrine.

If a person has not harmed another or damaged his property, whatever laws are brought up against him in the courts, he can rebut those laws using his freedom of religion... of course, only if he holds to that personal religion. People don't do this, but they could and should.

You are arguing someone can do something against the law because of their religion beliefs but not that someone can do something because the laws religious rules are wrong. Do you see the difference?

Not arguing yet. I don't understand what you are saying. Some religious rules and laws are not right. Some of your personal religious rules and laws of your personal religion are not right according to the personal rules and laws of somebody else and their religion.

Arguing as in the term debating. I agree with your last post. Although I don't believe I hold any personal religious rules. And I refuse to live by others personal religious rules. But it is amusing that I have noted in many that they do not even notice that their opinion is based on their doctrine. Maybe mine is as well and I am as blind to the fact?

If you strongly believe that you don't have any religious rules, and you firmly believe you don't have any religion, and you think about it regularly, and you adamantly stand up and say it now and again, you have the religion of not having a religion. Definition #6 at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t says: "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

Nice catch 22 you found there.

But that would be an atheist and is why I am Agnostic.

It is a paradox that only God can know if it exists and anyone thinking otherwise is in fact claiming to be God.

[ObscureBean]

The thing that most people don't seem to realize is that a religion is really just a belief system, nothing more. Every human rely on some belief system, whether there be a God involved or not. So you could say everyone is religious, the only thing that separates people is numbers. The guy who has his own personal belief system is not considered religious while millions that adhere to the same system are.

There difference between a belief and a religion is that a religion has ritualistic behavior that is oriented around the belief. As in, believe in XYZ, pray in this specific way, etc, otherwise you won't be granted eternal rewards.

Well this definition of religion encompasses the 'human way' as a whole. The reason you don't freak out every time you wake up is because you have a belief system that anchors you to this reality, without it you wouldn't be able to hold your mind together. Your 'ritualistic behavior' is to always recognize and respect the objects in your environment for what they are, for example, you 'ritually' understand that a chair is meant to be sat on. At a deep enough level, the demarcation line between science and religion blurs and the two become interchangeable. The 'eternal rewards' you refer to is merely the 'bait' that entices people to that particular system and is not a defining element of religion itself.

[BADecker]

I don't want Freedom OF religion, I want Freedom FROM religion.

-Confirmed Agnostic

Outside of your own personal religion of life and living, you have the ability to be free from any and all religions. The only way to get rid of your personal religion of life and living is to die (maybe become a vegetable).

Do you have any clue how wrong you are? Most laws are based on religious doctrine.

If a person has not harmed another or damaged his property, whatever laws are brought up against him in the courts, he can rebut those laws using his freedom of religion... of course, only if he holds to that personal religion. People don't do this, but they could and should.

You are arguing someone can do something against the law because of their religion beliefs but not that someone can do something because the laws religious rules are wrong. Do you see the difference?

Not arguing yet. I don't understand what you are saying. Some religious rules and laws are not right. Some of your personal religious rules and laws of your personal religion are not right according to the personal rules and laws of somebody else and their religion.

Arguing as in the term debating. I agree with your last post. Although I don't believe I hold any personal religious rules. And I refuse to live by others personal religious rules. But it is amusing that I have noted in many that they do not even notice that their opinion is based on their doctrine. Maybe mine is as well and I am as blind to the fact?

If you strongly believe that you don't have any religious rules, and you firmly believe you don't have any religion, and you think about it regularly, and you adamantly stand up and say it now and again, you have the religion of not having a religion. Definition #6 at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t says: "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

Nice catch 22 you found there.

But that would be an atheist and is why I am Agnostic.

It is a paradox that only God can know if it exists and anyone thinking otherwise is in fact claiming to be God.

Well, if I misinterpreted your responses to suggest you were an atheist, you could always interpret the "you" in my posts to mean anybody in general who happened to be reading.

Lots of folks belong to the Agnostic religion.

The paradox you mentioned fits all kinds of things. For instance, you and I don't really know that each other exist. But if we are reasonably sure that we do, then we CAN be reasonably sure that God exists if he tells us that He does.

Of course, if you know something, it is fact. There isn't much room for believing in something that you know is fact. I mean, do you factually know your wife/girlfriend exists while she is in your arms? Or do you only believe it? After all, some people who get their guy/gal after a long-term chase often say something like, "I can't believe I finally got you." It must be fact for them.

(Remember, "you" is general, not personal, unless it fits, of course.)

[Buffer Overflow]

Ok, so to answer the original question, I (as an atheist) don't hate religion.  What I hate is religious people who try to enforce rules upon the general population.  Rules that they themselves do not follow.  For example the commandment that says "don't be gay" is preceded by one that says "don't wear wool and linen at the same time."  Also sodomy is defined (strictly speaking) as any sex that is not for procreation (or more loosely defined as non-vaginal sex including oral).  So, yeah I know a LOT of christians and none of them follow these rules.  So where do they get off trying to make other people follow them?

I have had christian friends that did not want to have premarital sex, so they had oral or anal in stead.  And yet gay people should not get married...

Anyway, to all the christians out there:

WHY CAN'T YOU JUST LEAVE EVERYONE ELSE THE F ALONE?!?

And stop saying stupid crap like gay people are like child molesters.  Seriously.

When a Christian sees an atheist, out of love for the life and soul of the atheist, he automatically wants to convert the atheist to God, so that the life and soul of the atheist is saved rather than damned.

Then the atheist gets angry with the Christian for telling him supposed nonsense. So he speaks against the Christian. Yet it is the Christian's idea to love and save the atheist.

After a time of being persecuted by atheists, some Christians become upset and fight back, even though they shouldn't. But can you blame these Christians?

No. When a Christian sees an Atheist, he/she sees freedom, and naturally wants a piece of that freedom pie. There are many different reasons, fear and peer pressure being the dominant ones, that the Christian cannot have that freedom they see.
This gets them angry.
The correct way to deal with this would be to find the strength to break free of their chains, but only a few lucky ones manage.
The wrong way to deal with the anger is to try to remove the freedom from the other person, as once they stop seeing the freedom, their anger will disappear. They try to do this by good old fashion tried and tested fear. Pretending they are doing you a favour by "saving" you, when in reality they are trying to remove your freedom for their own gain.

Steer clear and keep your freedom.

[cryptodevil]

the dictionary definition

Tell you what, you dishonest fundie, seeing as all you have in your locker is to keep screeching about the 'dictionary definition' of the word 'atheist' and be particularly narrow-minded in which dictionary definition you are clinging to in order to desperately pretend you have a reasoned counter-argument, let's humour you a little and pretend, *real hard*, that the word 'atheist' actually does mean what you want it to mean and, therefore, us atheists cannot challenge your world-view.

Let us occupy this bizarre little perspective of yours, for a thought experiment, ok?

1.We create an artificial intelligence which is capable of utilising multiple sensors to observe and measure the reality it exists in, namely, The Universe.

2. None of its input warrants it concluding your 'God' exists.

3. The lack of its belief in your God is derived solely because there is no non-fallacious argument that would justify a belief in the existence of your ominpotent, omniscient, super-being deity.


Q: In that you are unable to present a cogent argument which would justify the AI accepting the existence of your 'God', is the rejection of your fallacious assertion reasonable grounds to continue accusing the AI's atheistic world-view as being religious in nature?

[exoexo]

Atheist don't hate religion, they just sometimes make fun of it and they don't like people who are really obsessed with their religion so they require special treatment because they oh so very religious and oh so close to this man in the sky with his angels.
But actually most atheist just don't care about religion. Why on earth would they?
It usually works other way around - religious people hate atheists. Their best argument is that without religion nothing will hold a person back from doing bad things. For me, that's an insult.

[Beliathon]

The best case for religion's existence in the twenty first century is an ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance. The worst case for religion is the merging of man and machine.

[BADecker]

Ok, so to answer the original question, I (as an atheist) don't hate religion.  What I hate is religious people who try to enforce rules upon the general population.  Rules that they themselves do not follow.  For example the commandment that says "don't be gay" is preceded by one that says "don't wear wool and linen at the same time."  Also sodomy is defined (strictly speaking) as any sex that is not for procreation (or more loosely defined as non-vaginal sex including oral).  So, yeah I know a LOT of christians and none of them follow these rules.  So where do they get off trying to make other people follow them?

I have had christian friends that did not want to have premarital sex, so they had oral or anal in stead.  And yet gay people should not get married...

Anyway, to all the christians out there:

WHY CAN'T YOU JUST LEAVE EVERYONE ELSE THE F ALONE?!?

And stop saying stupid crap like gay people are like child molesters.  Seriously.

When a Christian sees an atheist, out of love for the life and soul of the atheist, he automatically wants to convert the atheist to God, so that the life and soul of the atheist is saved rather than damned.

Then the atheist gets angry with the Christian for telling him supposed nonsense. So he speaks against the Christian. Yet it is the Christian's idea to love and save the atheist.

After a time of being persecuted by atheists, some Christians become upset and fight back, even though they shouldn't. But can you blame these Christians?

No. When a Christian sees an Atheist, he/she sees freedom, and naturally wants a piece of that freedom pie. There are many different reasons, fear and peer pressure being the dominant ones, that the Christian cannot have that freedom they see.
This gets them angry.
The correct way to deal with this would be to find the strength to break free of their chains, but only a few lucky ones manage.
The wrong way to deal with the anger is to try to remove the freedom from the other person, as once they stop seeing the freedom, their anger will disappear. They try to do this by good old fashion tried and tested fear. Pretending they are doing you a favour by "saving" you, when in reality they are trying to remove your freedom for their own gain.

Steer clear and keep your freedom.

Well of course it is different for every Christian, at least a little, but...

A Christian is aware of the fact that God owns everything, and that God is perfect. The Christian is aware that he is not perfect, because he can feel the sentence of death in his body - the coming of old age. This causes the Christian to fear God. Since God has shown Himself to be honorable among people, this fear turns into respect.

God is just, and punishes those who disobey Him. But He is also loving and merciful to those who try to obey Him, and believe in the forgiveness of Jesus in areas where they fail because of their imperfection.

It seems unfair when those who are against God - atheists, etc. - receive good things, while the good Christian often receives bad things. Certainly this can be upsetting to the Christian at times. However, this life generally lasts for less than a hundred years. So, that's less than a hundred years of enjoyment for the ungodly, and less than a hundred years of problems for the Christian. Then comes an eternity under the sentence that God will pronounce for each and every person individually.

Anybody who likes pain and problems is crazy.
Anybody who doesn't like pleasure and enjoyment and pleasantness is almost as crazy.
Anybody who chooses the good things here for 100 years, and thereby accepts an eternity of pain and problems, is crazier than the craziest.

Turn while you have the chance. Because if you don't, there may come a time for you that you will be locked in to your position of being against God, without the ability to change. Forever in the afterlife won't be fun for you.

[BADecker]

the dictionary definition

Tell you what, you dishonest fundie, seeing as all you have in your locker is to keep screeching about the 'dictionary definition' of the word 'atheist' and be particularly narrow-minded in which dictionary definition you are clinging to in order to desperately pretend you have a reasoned counter-argument, let's humour you a little and pretend, *real hard*, that the word 'atheist' actually does mean what you want it to mean and, therefore, us atheists cannot challenge your world-view.

Let us occupy this bizarre little perspective of yours, for a thought experiment, ok?

1.We create an artificial intelligence which is capable of utilising multiple sensors to observe and measure the reality it exists in, namely, The Universe.

2. None of its input warrants it concluding your 'God' exists.

3. The lack of its belief in your God is derived solely because there is no non-fallacious argument that would justify a belief in the existence of your ominpotent, omniscient, super-being deity.


Q: In that you are unable to present a cogent argument which would justify the AI accepting the existence of your 'God', is the rejection of your fallacious assertion reasonable grounds to continue accusing the AI's atheistic world-view as being religious in nature?

Why do use such harsh language with me? After all, you are essentially a pretty nice guy, or you wouldn't even waste the time on a forum like this.

In answer to your points and question, would the AI recognize that it was built by someone, or some group of people?

The reason I ask is, we, the human beings, are the AI that God created.

The fact that there is no explanation for the existence of the universe that is based on clear scientific fact, is the almost absolute proof that, whatever the Greatness is that caused the universe to come into existence, fits the dictionary definition of the word "God."

There is nothing wrong with the fact that you are unwilling to accept part of the dictionary definition of the word "atheist" as applying to yourself. However, whatever the dictionary definitions are, they are applicable to you by others... even if it upsets you. If they weren't, they wouldn't be in the dictionary.

Thanks for playing.

[BADecker]

Atheist its not hate Religion, they just not belive the existence of god 
Atheists think that God is not there because God does not look do not feel they think that everything that happens in this world have nothing to do with God 
Thats just my opinion because iam not Atheists 

Just curious. You, a newbie, are obviously talking like this to hide your writing style from us, so that we won't know what your old handle was. Who are you?

 

[BADecker]

Nobody's personal religion is the absolute truth.

So that would include yours.

Thank you.   

[cryptodevil]

Why do use such harsh language with me? .

What, "you dishonest fundie"? Which part of that is harsh when it is completely correct?

In answer to your points and question, would the AI recognize that it was built by someone, or some group of people?

That question is irrelevant and the only reason you are asking it is because you are being a dishonest fundamentalist Christian, again.

See? I can use that phrase quite often with you because your debating tactics are so dishonest and fallacious.

Answer the question that was posed:

Q: In that you are unable to present a cogent argument which would justify the AI accepting the existence of your 'God', is the rejection of your fallacious assertion reasonable grounds to continue accusing the AI's atheistic world-view as being religious in nature?

[BADecker]

Why do use such harsh language with me? .

What, "you dishonest fundie"? Which part of that is harsh when it is completely correct?

In answer to your points and question, would the AI recognize that it was built by someone, or some group of people?

That question is irrelevant and the only reason you are asking it is because you are being a dishonest fundamentalist Christian, again.

See? I can use that phrase quite often with you because your debating tactics are so dishonest and fallacious.

Answer the question that was posed:

Q: In that you are unable to present a cogent argument which would justify the AI accepting the existence of your 'God', is the rejection of your fallacious assertion reasonable grounds to continue accusing the AI's atheistic world-view as being religious in nature?

I'm glad you are having fun. After all, your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Of course if it did, you wouldn't be an atheist.

Your yes-or-no question is not answerable because there isn't any fallacious assertion, as shown by, 'The fact that there is no explanation for the existence of the universe that is based on clear scientific fact, is the almost absolute proof that, whatever the Greatness is that caused the universe to come into existence, fits the dictionary definition of the word "God."'