Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[cryptodevil]

By any means, sincere ignorance is more forgivable than downright defiance, so you won't get away cheap when the reckoning starts...

By which authority do you cite such a thing?

Because, for example, worshiping a 'false idol' is very clearly described as being one of the worst possible sins you can commit.

Exodus 20:3 - Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Exodus 34:14 - For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:

So, I've produced the goods to prove that it is actually less of a 'sin' to not worship a god than it is to worship a different god.

Care to actually back up your smug yet uninformed position about 'sincere ignorance'?

BTW 'downright defiance'? Prove it, prove how an inability to believe in a god, due to their being no justifiable reason to do so, could be considered as being 'downright defiant'? You can't force yourself to believe once your brain sees the man behind the curtain, the logical fallacies, the special-pleading demands. etc.

[1714850845]

1714850845

[deisik]

By any means, sincere ignorance is more forgivable than downright defiance, so you won't get away cheap when the reckoning starts...

By which authority do you cite such a thing?

Because, for example, worshiping a 'false idol' is very clearly described as being one of the worst possible sins you can commit.

Exodus 20:3 - Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Exodus 34:14 - For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:

So, I've produced the goods to prove that it is actually less of a 'sin' to not worship a god than it is to worship a different god.

Care to actually back up your smug yet uninformed position about 'sincere ignorance'?

BTW 'downright defiance'? Prove it, prove how an inability to believe in a god, due to their being no justifiable reason to do so, could be considered as being 'downright defiant'? You can't force yourself to believe once your brain sees the man behind the curtain, the logical fallacies, the special-pleading demands. etc.

Psalm 14:1 - The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good

Romans 1: -  18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

So beware, you are without excuse, ever!

[cryptodevil]

Psalm 14:1 - The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good

Romans 1: -  18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

So beware, you are without excuse, ever!

Except one small point, given that this is just *your* god, the Muslim god and the Jewish god and all the others say pretty much the same thing about worshiping them, too, so who should I believe and why?

So with regards to "because God has made it plain to them", no, 'He' hasn't at all, clearly, otherwise we'd all know there was just the one god and we'd know exactly what he wants of us with no uncertainty or doubt or room for human interpretation, right? You know, human interpretation, like the process you go through when you read your religious scripture and it perfectly aligns with your own world-view, only, here's the problem, that very same scripture is also believed to say something different to pretty much everyone else who cites a level of 'understanding' which, too, happens to align perfectly with their personal world-view.

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
    ...Stephen F Roberts

[deisik]

Psalm 14:1 - The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good

Romans 1: -  18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

So beware, you are without excuse, ever!

Except one small point, given that this is just *your* god, the Muslim god and the Jewish god and all the others say pretty much the same thing about worshiping them, too, so who should I believe and why?

It is up to you. I just said that believing in some Supreme Deity is more optimal strategy than believing in none (or disbelieving in any). Besides that, any human is still a caveman deep (or not so deep) inside with his inborn fears and terrors (regarding "God has made it plain to them")...

[cryptodevil]

It is up to you. I just said that believing in some Supreme Deity is more optimal strategy than believing in none (or disbelieving in any). Besides that, any human is still a caveman deep (or not so deep) inside with his inborn fears and terrors (regarding "God has made it plain to them")...

I know that's what you said, I just pointed out that it is false to claim that it is more 'optimal' to believe in a god than none, considering the actual fact that most 'holy' scripture for the many gods claimed to be real tend to *really* emphasize the fact that worshiping any other god is usually *the* worst sin you can commit against 'Him'.

Hence the logical response to that dilemma, which is to not believe in any of them.

You, however, insist that *your* god is real because you cited scripture from your particular 'Holy' book-of-choice and I asked you how I could trust that your god was the 'right' one, given that all the other religions claims their god is the right one and you all have exactly the same level of evidence supporting your claims towards your particular god being the coca-cola of gods. (just so you know, that 'evidence' is known as circular-reasoning because you all claim that your books say your god is real and your god wrote those books so, you know, he must be real because the books he wrote say he is real which means . . . do you see the problem there?)

 

[deisik]

It is up to you. I just said that believing in some Supreme Deity is more optimal strategy than believing in none (or disbelieving in any). Besides that, any human is still a caveman deep (or not so deep) inside with his inborn fears and terrors (regarding "God has made it plain to them")...

I know that's what you said, I just pointed out that it is false to claim that it is more 'optimal' to believe in a god than none, considering the actual fact that most 'holy' scripture for the many gods claimed to be real tend to *really* emphasize the fact that worshiping any other god is usually *the* worst sin you can commit against 'Him'.

Hence the logical response to that dilemma, which is to not believe in any of them.

Actually, you are trying to distort the facts. The passages you cited do not prove your words. From my own experience (without reference to scriptures and all that) I can tell that atheists and their kind are considered sinners of higher magnitude for being such than followers of another religion for being that. Even in Ancient Rome it didn't matter which gods you offered prayers to as long as you did pray...

You, however, insist that *your* god is real because you cited scripture from your particular 'Holy' book-of-choice and I asked you how I could trust that your god was the 'right' one, given that all the other religions claims their god is the right one and you all have exactly the same level of evidence supporting your claims towards your particular god being the coca-cola of gods.

You won't buy me with that. It was you who began citing scriptures in the first place. I just followed your course and showed that exactly these scriptures promise "the wrath of God being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people". By no means this wrath is directed towards people who believe in another God. It is directed against pagans before all, since declaring himself an atheist back then (by whatever name) inexorably entailed punishment...

[cryptodevil]

Actually, you are trying to distort the facts. The passages you cited do not prove your words.

"Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me"

Number 1 on the list. Number 1.

So it is pretty clear that worshiping another god is *the* worst thing above all else.

From my own experience (without reference to scriptures and all that) I can tell that atheists and their kind are considered sinners of higher magnitude for being such than followers of another religion.

From your own experience? What is that meant to mean? We are talking about the opinion of gods, here, something only found in their respective 'Holy' scriptures, preferably dictated by illiterate goat-herders, then refined, edited and generally cherry-picked over hundreds of years to add to a collection of mismatched fables according to the goals of whichever Church was producing it, of course.

How come your experience matters? Citation please Mr God-Like.

Even in Ancient Rome it didn't matter which gods you offered prayers to as long as you did pray...

That would be why, exactly? Social norms are dictated by human beings, refusing to pray would single you out as a potentially dangerous free-thinker and not likely to be controlled like the rest of the sheep. You have failed to make the connection to WhatGodWants(tm) and are only referencing cultural norms of the time, which is irrelevant in terms of Pascal's Wager.

You, however, insist that *your* god is real because you cited scripture from your particular 'Holy' book-of-choice and I asked you how I could trust that your god was the 'right' one, given that all the other religions claims their god is the right one and you all have exactly the same level of evidence supporting your claims towards your particular god being the coca-cola of gods.

Be honest, you don't want to answer this because you *know* your god is the 'right' one, amirite?!!! LOL.

[deisik]

Actually, you are trying to distort the facts. The passages you cited do not prove your words.

"Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me"

Number 1 on the list. Number 1.

So it is pretty clear that worshiping another god is *the* worst thing above all else.

If you call that logical inference that your logic is rather skewed, I dare say

From your own experience? What is that meant to mean? We are talking about the opinion of gods, here, something only found in their respective 'Holy' scriptures, preferably dictated by illiterate goat-herders, then refined, edited and generally cherry-picked over hundreds of years to add to a collection of mismatched fables according to the goals of whichever Church was producing it, of course.

Strictly speaking, it is you who is talking about the opinion of gods. As I said before, I just followed your course (when you started citing scriptures), but it would be a mistake on your part to think that you somehow narrowed my scope of reason thereby...

[cryptodevil]

Strictly speaking, it is you who is talking about the opinion of gods. As I said before, I just followed your course (when you started citing scriptures), but it would be a mistake on your part to think that you somehow narrowed my scope of reason...

You are the one declaring to know WGW in terms of your assertion that, according to you, Pascal's Wager is best settled by believing in God.

I merely pointed out that, according to the various 'Holy' scriptures which claim to document knowledge of WGW, it is far worse to worship another god than it is to not believe in them, leading to the correct conclusion that Pascal's Wager is actually better settled by not believing in any of them.

You, however, then claimed your personal experience led you to assert otherwise and I asked how come you lay claim to knowing WGW above your 'Holy' scripture which clearly states that worshiping another God is *the* single worst thing a human being can do, that's why it is Number 1 on the list of Ten.

[deisik]

Strictly speaking, it is you who is talking about the opinion of gods. As I said before, I just followed your course (when you started citing scriptures), but it would be a mistake on your part to think that you somehow narrowed my scope of reason...

You are the one declaring to know WGW in terms of your assertion that, according to you, Pascal's Wager is best settled by believing in God.

What is WGW? White girl wasted, wtf?

I merely pointed out that, according to the various 'Holy' scriptures which claim to document knowledge of WGW, it is far worse to worship another god than it is to not believe in them, leading to the correct conclusion that Pascal's Wager is actually better settled by not believing in any of them.

I don't know what is WGW, but I didn't ever think about what various scriptures tell. Ultimately, they are irrelevant (and so are irrelevant all your arguments thereby), since internally the faith is the same for all people (as well as the lack thereof). Therefore, if there is God, he wouldn't care much about whichever name people refer to him (since any name would be no more than a product of human imagination). In this aspect, if we proceed from the assumption that he does care whether people believe in him or not (which is what actually relevant in Pascal's Wager), the answer to the choice of optimal strategy becomes pretty obvious...

Essentially, that's what I got from my experience by talking with people of different religions and confessions

[cryptodevil]

What is WGW? White girl wasted, wtf?

I had already referenced it as the typical arrogant theist declaration of 'knowing' WhatGodWants (WGW) which is ironic considering that intellectualised atheists generally are the first to be willing to state that they do not know something unless there is good reason or evidence to consider such yet are frequently accused as being arrogant by theists.

since internally the faith is the same for all people (as well as the lack thereof).

This is meaningless. By which metric do you consider faith as being 'the same'?

Therefore, if there is God, he wouldn't care much . . .<snip>

Do you see what you did there? You ascribe characteristics to a God by way of your definition of 'knowing' WhatGodWants(tm). Let's take a look at what you claim the basis for your 'knowledge':

Essentially, that's what I got from my experience by talking with people of different religions and confessions

So you spoke to a bunch of people who base their reality on 'knowing' WGW(tm) and decided that your reality was going to be defined by you asserting that WGW(tm) is for everybody to worship *any* god because then they would be worshipping 'Him' and would not be as evil as those terrible atheists who simply refuse to believe in gods of any kind.

You clearly understand very little of the extremely contradictory nature of the many gods people believe in. Extremely.

Simply declaring that a belief in any god is sufficient is to absolutely deny the reality of what that actually entails in terms of how each person then defines their morality and boundaries in life, which constitutes how they define themselves and their behaviour in this life. Take a look around you, it doesn't work the way you are claiming it does in terms of theism being the preferred method of defining 'good'.

Your logic is grossly flawed and your assertion is simply word-salad with no actual substance.

The only possible solution to Pascal's Wager, in terms of what you described as the 'optimum' choice, is the lack of belief and, by default, lack of worship, of any god.

[deisik]

What is WGW? White girl wasted, wtf?

I had already referenced it as the typical arrogant theist declaration of 'knowing' WhatGodWants (WGW) which is ironic considering that intellectualised atheists generally are the first to be willing to state that they do not know something unless there is good reason or evidence to consider such yet are frequently accused as being arrogant by theists.

Oh, sorry. I don't keep in mind what you write (well, mostly) since you are evidently busy trying to confuse matters instead of clearing them up. I mean all those references to scriptures and things like that (which are not relevant)

since internally the faith is the same for all people (as well as the lack thereof).

This is meaningless. By which metric do you consider faith as being 'the same'?

Since we are all humans, therefore possess the same basic qualities (senses). But in the end it doesn't matter, since otherwise you should also consider non-faith as being of different colors and shapes. By faith here I mean belief in being held responsible before some deity for one's actions and deeds during one's life

Therefore, if there is God, he wouldn't care much . . .<snip>

Do you see what you did there? You ascribe characteristics to a God by way of your definition of 'knowing' WhatGodWants(tm).

I don't ascribe anything, it is no more than your wishful thinking. The only thing I actually said (and meant) in this aspect is that for Pascal's Wager to hold (make sense), God should care whether people believe in him or not (by whatever name). All other characteristics are ultimately irrelevant since they distort the essence of the dilemma in every way possible, AND are rendered void by the fact that atheists don't believe in any God at all. It doesn't matter in which God you believe (good or bad), since the opposite is the absence of believing altogether. Thus it all boils down to faith against the absence of faith. And for caring God you'd better have one...

In fact, I already got tired of your demagogy

[BADecker]

When you post garabage about your common law fantasy, you look even sillier than when you're trying to keep all your religious nonsense straight.

Is this related to that "Freeman on the Land" garbage I've seen when people make complete fools of themselves in court and post it on YouTube as a win?

Possibly. BADecker is on some thing about how all you have to do is challenge the jurisdiction of the court by telling them to define certain magic words and then you COMMON LAW VICTORY WIN or something wholly ridiculous. (While I am intentionally making it sound dumb, ask him for the official logic of it, and then you'll see my intentional misrepresentation isn't actually more absurd, and has the added benefit of humor, whereas the people who believe they have discovered a magic 'get out of jail free card' are entirely serious.)

There are many common law wins and defeats (obviously, if somebody wins, somebody else loses). Many small claims court "trials" are common law, because they are person to person. If a Judge makes the decision, then his decision is based on the evidences and facts that the people bring in their claims at the Small "CLAIMS" Court.

Wake up and see that the position of government official can't do anything without a man holding that position, or subordinate positions. Thus, if the government official position harms or injures you, it wasn't the position (governmental office) that harmed or injured you. It was the man who did it.

Now this guy who harmed you, does he put his pants on right leg or left leg first? That is, is he a man or a god? And if he is a god, you are a god just as much as he, because you have the right to put your pants on any way you want.

If the guy harms you, and if you don't deserve the harm he did to you, and especially if he does that harm in ways that his governmental position says he is not supposed to do, then honorably sue the biggest bucks out of him as you can.

[BADecker]

If atheists hate organized religion, it's because they blame religion for many of the problems that exist in life.

If atheists hate religion in general, it's because their atheism is their attempt to get away from religion, but they can't, because atheism IS a religion.

[Buffer Overflow]

Quite simple. If you believe and God exists, you'll be rewarded. If God doesn't exist, you lose nothing. Therefore believing is more optimal strategy in life (and beyond), which atheists simply can't agree with and humbly resign themselves to...

Not too sure I agree with this optimal strategy thing.
Advantages of Atheism.

1) Don't have to live in fear of displeasing their god everyday, because they don't have one.
2) Avoiding the very high probability risk of accidently worshipping a false god.
3) No danger of accidently worshipping the devil disguised as god.
4) Got their Sundays free to do as they like.
5) More money in their pocket as the church hasn't squeezed it out of them.
6) Is amusing because religious people get annoyed others don't want to subscribe to "their special god club".

I expect there are many more if anybody wants to add.

[pedrog]

But since its fun let me initiate my own brand of 'why do' topic.

WHY DO ATHEISTS (like me) HATE RELIGION ?

Quite simple. If you believe and God exists, you'll be rewarded. If God doesn't exist, you lose nothing. Therefore believing is more optimal strategy in life (and beyond), which atheists simply can't agree with and humbly resign themselves to...

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it only takes into account one particular version of god, it is a False Dichotomy fallacy, a god may exist and he can not care if one believes in it for example.

The possibilities for the existence of gods are pretty much endless, if you want to make a wager based on that, the less riskier bet is to not take sides, if the true god ends up to be the Korubo's god at least when you meet it you can say you have taken no sides, if that particular god cares about that....

[deisik]

But since its fun let me initiate my own brand of 'why do' topic.

WHY DO ATHEISTS (like me) HATE RELIGION ?

Quite simple. If you believe and God exists, you'll be rewarded. If God doesn't exist, you lose nothing. Therefore believing is more optimal strategy in life (and beyond), which atheists simply can't agree with and humbly resign themselves to...

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it only takes into account one particular version of god, it is a False Dichotomy fallacy, a god may exist and he can not care if one believes in it for example.

That was the only condition that I put forward further, that God does indeed care whether people believe in him or not (in positive sense). If he does, then not believing at all is an unreservedly losing strategy (all other things unknown). Even if it turns out in the end that you believed in the wrong God (which you don't know a priori)...

Strictly speaking, an indifferent supreme deity shouldn't be called God in the first place, but even in this case believing is still an optimal strategy (since you lose nothing believing). Nothing essentially changes

[pedrog]

But since its fun let me initiate my own brand of 'why do' topic.

WHY DO ATHEISTS (like me) HATE RELIGION ?

Quite simple. If you believe and God exists, you'll be rewarded. If God doesn't exist, you lose nothing. Therefore believing is more optimal strategy in life (and beyond), which atheists simply can't agree with and humbly resign themselves to...

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it only takes into account one particular version of god, it is a False Dichotomy fallacy, a god may exist and he can not care if one believes in it for example.

That was the only condition that I put forward further, that God does indeed care whether people believe in him or not (in positive sense). If he does, then not believing at all is an unreservedly losing strategy (all other things unknown). Even if it turns out in the end that you believed in the wrong God (which you don't know a priori)...

Strictly speaking, an indifferent supreme deity shouldn't be called God in the first place

Even so, it doesn't make it better, because there are a lot of gods that do care if people believe in them or not, the best bet continues to be not taking sides.

[deisik]

But since its fun let me initiate my own brand of 'why do' topic.

WHY DO ATHEISTS (like me) HATE RELIGION ?

Quite simple. If you believe and God exists, you'll be rewarded. If God doesn't exist, you lose nothing. Therefore believing is more optimal strategy in life (and beyond), which atheists simply can't agree with and humbly resign themselves to...

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it only takes into account one particular version of god, it is a False Dichotomy fallacy, a god may exist and he can not care if one believes in it for example.

That was the only condition that I put forward further, that God does indeed care whether people believe in him or not (in positive sense). If he does, then not believing at all is an unreservedly losing strategy (all other things unknown). Even if it turns out in the end that you believed in the wrong God (which you don't know a priori)...

Strictly speaking, an indifferent supreme deity shouldn't be called God in the first place

Even so, it doesn't make it better, because there are a lot of gods that do care if people believe in them or not, the best bet continues to be not taking sides.

There are no sides to take. Indifferent god is equal to no god. And nothing changes in the end. In fact, it wouldn't be a god at all in the way it is meant in Pascal's Wager

[cryptodevil]

Therefore, if there is God, he wouldn't care much . . .<snip>

Do you see what you did there? You ascribe characteristics to a God by way of your definition of 'knowing' WhatGodWants(tm).

I don't ascribe anything, it is no more than your wishful thinking. The only thing I actually said (and meant) in this aspect is that for Pascal's Wager to hold (make sense), God should care whether people believe in him or not (by whatever name).

You don't get to dismiss the fact that "if there is God, he wouldn't care much . . ." is *absolutely* stating a claim towards knowing WhatGodWants(tm). "he wouldn't care much . . ." - What else is that if it isn't you specifying a characteristic of your god?

And for caring God you'd better have one...

- Again, you are asserting something you cannot possibly define. You are still claiming that a god that seeks worship will accept the worship of any god, but for you to claim such you would have to base your reasoning on particular scripture, entirely ignoring the fact that numerous religious texts are very clear on the dire need to *only* worship their specific god with their proscribed characteristics.

If you aren't citing scripture in order to assert WhatGodWants(tm) then you are simply pulling this claim out of your ass, which makes it equally arbitrary and fallacious because one can just as easily define a 'caring' god as one which cares only that those worshiping it are 'good' people as you can claim his 'caring' be only measured by requiring that people worship 'Him' through the worship of any god, even those whose claimed values are in direct conflict with each other. It is nonsensical.

Do you see, you can't claim to only be citing the logic of Pascal's Wager being based on a god who cares about being worshiped if you are also claiming *anything* more about that state of 'caring'. So the *only* additional 'data' (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense) claimed towards WhatGodWants(tm) in terms of expanding on the definition of what 'He' cares for, is that written in multiple 'Holy' texts and, as explained, much of it is in direct conflict with each other, which means that if a god can't be bothered to communicate clearly and unambiguously as to what he requires of us then he probably doesn't care about being worshiped and if you want to claim he *has* communicated such then you are back to citing conflicting scripture or arbitrary opinion, both of which are meaningless when seeking to construct a cohesive platform to build your argument on.

In fact, I already got tired of your demagogy

Yeah, funny how people who have their assertion exposed for the fallacious reasoning it is frequently cite how tired they are of those who successfully argue against their position.