Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[cryptodevil]

Look at ourselves Bodily parts how nicely and precisely has been created

You obviously know nothing of biology. Which isn't a surprise for someone who is reducing their world-view to "Whoa, it is so complicated I don't comprehend how it all works, therefore God".

[1714125041]

1714125041

[1714125041]

1714125041

[Buffer Overflow]

Look at ourselves Bodily parts how nicely and precisely has been created.

Or evolved, which gives us the impression of being created with this much precision.

[Lauda]

Okay, point taken. I won't speak to him on this thread anymore.

Please, just put him on ignore and let's try to actually have a beneficial discussion.

I guess that one of the reasons could be that the theists think that they are superior and better. However, even when a person presents to them facts/evidence they do not give up. If anyone would be superior that would be the agnostics and atheists.
e.g. Does anyone even know how flawed the early chapter of Genesis is? We don't know much about Adam's offspring aside from the first son being Cain, second son Abel; there was another one named Seth which was "begotten when Adam was 130 years old". According to the text (Genesis 5:3-4) Adam "begot son and daughters" after that. This same passage tells us that Adam lived for 930 years (Genesis 5:5).

So according to some evolution isn't possible, but living for 930 years is. Very intelligent thought. 
The underlying problem is here is that theists are very closed minded about this. They interpret and only use the parts of the Bible that fit their needs. I think that some atheists can't really handle this, i.e. they aren't that patient. This is where part of their hate could come from.

[cryptodevil]

Look at ourselves Bodily parts how nicely and precisely has been created

You obviously know nothing of biology. Which isn't a surprise for someone who is reducing their world-view to "Whoa, it is so complicated I don't comprehend how it all works, therefore God".

Let me give you a small example:

Intelligent Design supposedly created the Mycoplasma genitalium bacterium with 482 genes. Man's analysis of the genome showed that about 100 of those genes did absolutely nothing for the organism except waste food energy. Man then created a synthetic genome consisting of just 382 synthetic genes that were required for this bacterium to function normally. After several thousand of generations the synthetic genome bacteria was still functioning in the same manner as the original bacterium except it was more efficient in regards to energy usage.

Which means either Man fixed the Intelligent (Inept) Design of the Creator or Man has fixed the expected results from the processes of evolution.

Which is it?

[khawaja07]

i think teachers in church know that god is not there they play with childs emotions.I understand that teachers in certain church-based schools, and parents in some ‘religious’ homes, commonly used the ‘fear of God’ to make children behave.
shouldn't they tell the child reality..?

the only thing exists is humanity..and i do believe in humanity..if i have hurted any ones feeling,let me be forgived.

thank you.

[Harry Hood]

So I see 2 threads of why islam hates people or why people hate Islam. I dont see the point of such a mundane debate based on religion any debate for or against religion would be stupid. Either you are stupid to believe what a prophet / god / divine entity said or you are stupid enough to believe you can change the minds of the bleak minded people who follow such a prophet / god / divine entity.

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

WHY DO ATHEISTS (like me) HATE RELIGION ?

Seriously what has to happen in a person's life for them to seriously give up hope on the one true everlasting brand (of religion) which their ancestors have followed for generations.

Everyone has their own story even I have mine, so lets hear some of it.

I don't think Atheists hate religion, they just don't believe in it.

Maybe the real question is why do YOU hate religion? What made you "give up hope on the one true everlasting brand (of religion) which [your] ancestors have followed for generations"? What's your story?

And there's nothing wrong with hating something, but I think that's really what you're trying to understand.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

i think teachers in church know that god is not there they play with childs emotions.I understand that teachers in certain church-based schools, and parents in some ‘religious’ homes, commonly used the ‘fear of God’ to make children behave.
shouldn't they tell the child reality..?

the only thing exists is humanity..and i do believe in humanity..if i have hurted any ones feeling,let me be forgived.

thank you.

If someone tells another to not do something "bad" (as outlined in the bible) or else they will go to hell, that is not of the New Testament.

The belief:

1) Everyone is a sinner by nature.
2) Everyone will sin (even teachers in a church)
3) Jesus Christ washes away our sins if we ask for it.
4) Everyone can be saved by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior.

Jesus had dinner with all types of people. The point of Christianity is to welcome everyone in, if they want to be there.

Luke 7:37 And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he (Jesus) was reclining at table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, 38 and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.” 40 And Jesus answering said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he answered, “Say it, Teacher.”

41 “A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?” 43 Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.” And he said to him, “You have judged rightly.” 44 Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. 46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. 47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” 48 And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 49 Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” 50 And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”


Matthew 21:31"Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you. 32"For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him; and you, seeing this, did not even feel remorse afterward so as to believe him.

Yes, it does say to spend time with sinners but not with too many sinful people, you wouldn't want to be influenced to sin more. We, Christians are to embrace everyone, and show his mercy to everyone, but not to get "unequally chained" with sinners, lest we fall into more sinful behavior.

2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

My point is, the message should be about accepting people as long as they love Jesus, and any sins are washed away. There's no point in saying if you do, you'll go to hell. Jesus forgave many people, many sins just because they believed in him.

If you believe Christians are "putting the fear of God" in someone as telling them they'll go to hell if they don't straighten up, it's not a very Christian message... Christ embraces sinners all the time. That's the real Christian message.

As far as telling children the reality, the reality is if you sin, you're more prone to more sin. (sinning doesn't really matter for salvation,  when you can just ask for forgiveness, but it does lead to being in situations that are more difficult to live with in the long run)

They should be taught to do unto others as they would have done unto themselves. Put yourself in any other person's position and see if you'd like it if it happened to you. It's not the best (as you may be ok with things others aren't), but it's a pretty good outline of how to act.

[Lauda]

Let me give you a small example:

Intelligent Design supposedly created the Mycoplasma genitalium bacterium with 482 genes. Man's analysis of the genome showed that about 100 of those genes did absolutely nothing for the organism except waste food energy. Man then created a synthetic genome consisting of just 382 synthetic genes that were required for this bacterium to function normally. After several thousand of generations the synthetic genome bacteria was still functioning in the same manner as the original bacterium except it was more efficient in regards to energy usage.

Which means either Man fixed the Intelligent (Inept) Design of the Creator or Man has fixed the expected results from the processes of evolution.

Which is it?

Excellent example. I've actually copied it to my archive, as such arguments are quite rare. The same example can be made with humans. Religious people tend to argue that evolution couldn't have made such perfect beings as humans.
However studies have shown that less than 10% of our DNA is being used and that the rest is junk. Meaning our design isn't efficient at all. Some sources are claiming 8.2% is being used, that's about 250 million DNA letters. However, more than 2 billion are junk.
http://www.livescience.com/46986-human-genome-junk-dna.html
http://www.medicaldaily.com/human-genome-mostly-junk-dna-only-82-functional-294786

-snip-
the only thing exists is humanity..and i do believe in humanity..if i have hurted any ones feeling,let me be forgived.

So you're telling me that humanity is the only intelligent species out there?  
There are roughly 500 billion galaxies in the universe (observable so far). So there are about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (5×10^22) potential habitable planets. I’ll leave you to do the math on whether one of those 50 sextillion planets has alien life or not.

Note: Source is 2 years old; information tends to change.
Source

[deisik]

Let me give you a small example:

Intelligent Design supposedly created the Mycoplasma genitalium bacterium with 482 genes. Man's analysis of the genome showed that about 100 of those genes did absolutely nothing for the organism except waste food energy. Man then created a synthetic genome consisting of just 382 synthetic genes that were required for this bacterium to function normally. After several thousand of generations the synthetic genome bacteria was still functioning in the same manner as the original bacterium except it was more efficient in regards to energy usage.

Which means either Man fixed the Intelligent (Inept) Design of the Creator or Man has fixed the expected results from the processes of evolution.

Which is it?

Excellent example. I've actually copied it to my archive, as such arguments are quite rare. The same example can be made with humans. Religious people tend to argue that evolution couldn't have made such perfect beings as humans.
However studies have shown that less than 10% of our DNA is being used and that the rest is junk. Meaning our design isn't efficient at all. Some sources are claiming 8.2% is being used, that's about 250 million DNA letters. However, more than 2 billion are junk.

So many people are doing the same logical fallacy (so called round-trip fallacy) again and again. If you don't understand something, it doesn't mean it is meaningless (still less junk). In short, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

This pertains to the original post as well (that about Mycoplasma)

[BLKBITZ]

All theists ignore science, every religion claims to be the only true one and believes that everyone else is going to hell, they all believe in ancient holy books, they all shove their beliefs down other people's throats

Way to generalize.

I'm a theist.  I do not ignore science.

Here's a true generalization for you:  All scientists who believe it is necessarily silly to believe in something without physical evidence are hypocrites.

LOL I am theist and science is one of my favorite subjects. Atheist don't want to be generalized but then they generalize us.

[the joint]

All theists ignore science, every religion claims to be the only true one and believes that everyone else is going to hell, they all believe in ancient holy books, they all shove their beliefs down other people's throats

Way to generalize.

I'm a theist.  I do not ignore science.

Here's a true generalization for you:  All scientists who believe it is necessarily silly to believe in something without physical evidence are hypocrites.

LOL I am theist and science is one of my favorite subjects. Atheist don't want to be generalized but then they generalize us.

I just think Philosophy is a lost art sometimes, which is incredibly unfortunate because it's a predicate for any and all beliefs and worldviews, including scientific ones.

Every time I hear a proponent of science discredit the merits of philosophical thinking, I have little choice but to assume they don't really understand the Scientific Method and why/how it works, and then I wish dunce caps were popular again.

[protokol]

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.

Just found your post, I'll try to reply as best I can.

Regarding the margin-of-error, we are on the same page here. I understand that more trials = higher statistical evidence. It's just that, as you say, we can never have complete knowledge. This means that it is possible, for example, that every single trial ever done was influenced by an alien race from a parallel universe and they "tweaked" the outcome of every trial to affect our understanding of reality. My point was that, if something like this had happened, we would have no way of knowing. We also don't have any way of measuring how likely this is because it would be beyond our empirical understanding of reality. Such a scenario is logically possible, but is totally impossible to provide evidence for, due to the faults in inductive reasoning. That's what bugs me.

Regarding the double-slit experiment, I suppose you're right in saying that observation is 2nd order. But the reason the experiment works, is that when observing anything on the quantum scale, we have to interact with it. Whether it is a human interacting, or a sensor, we have to measure photons that have bounced off the particles we are trying to measure, and these photons must have influenced the particles. In normal day-to-day life, we don't need to worry about these interactions because we humans are not sensitive to anything on the quantum level, and photons do not affect anything that we interact with in this way. So although all observation is inherently 2nd order and not 1st order, I think it makes more sense to falsely treat our own human-specific observations as 1st order.

So there is no "mystical" element of the result. (I'm not insinuating that you said this, it's just that it's a common misconception. Many people think that the experiment is evidence of magic or some shit...)

I totally agree with your definition of an optimum model, and with your point about it not being possible to know if reality "always existed", due to the limitations of inductive reasoning. You rightly say that, to know this "you would need to somehow collect metric data via observation in a Universe totally void of observers and metrics." (Great line, it pretty much sums up my feelings on philosophy and why I both love it and hate it  , kinda links back to my point about the interfering alien race)

I have to admit, I'm finding your final paragraph hard to understand (when I google sameness-in-difference I get loads of obscure philosophical papers about feminism and racism). From what I do understand though, it seems to me that you're providing a valid and compelling case for agnosticism, but not for the existence of an intelligent designer.

[crazyearner]

With religion comes too many different versions one thing says one thing another says another and find it all to lead to the same thing. I believe in what I believe and that is not religion in full. I believe in many different things but when it comes to this type of mumbo jumbo it makes no seance what so ever. You follow one then you look at another and says your in the wrong and their right and ever other is wrong. I do believe in some of it but not everything so does that make me atheists ? Must be.

[Lauda]

Removed.

With religion comes too many different versions one thing says one thing another says another and find it all to lead to the same thing. I believe in what I believe and that is not religion in full. I believe in many different things but when it comes to this type of mumbo jumbo it makes no seance what so ever. You follow one then you look at another and says your in the wrong and their right and ever other is wrong. I do believe in some of it but not everything so does that make me atheists ? Must be.

Okay let me explain this.
Wise men are instructed by reason;
Men of less understanding, by experience;
The most ignorant, by necessity;
The beasts by nature.

Hoping that someone will save you after you die (probably related to fear) is a necessity for a good % of humans.  

[Lethn]

Stop fucking using the word fallacy or ad hominem to make yourselves sound clever, you don't know what it fucking means or how to use it in the correct context, it also makes you look incredibly stupid if you're trying to have an argument.

Yes, I'm getting more annoyed about this than religion lately, it's become a more pressing problem on the internet in particular.

[deisik]

So many people are doing the same logical fallacy (so called round-trip fallacy) again and again. If you don't understand something, it doesn't mean it is meaningless (still less junk). In short, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

This pertains to the original post as well (that about Mycoplasma)

What credentials do you have so that you can disprove the claims of other scientists? Rather than showing "superiority" how about actually posting references? Thank you.

I guess, you should at first prove that "scientists" (and not some brain-dead journalists) actually claimed something to the effect that "more than 2 billion [DNA entries] are junk" (rather than showing "superiority", wtf)...

[deisik]

I guess, you should at first prove that "scientists" (and not some brain-dead journalists) actually claimed something to the effect that "more than 2 billion [DNA entries] are junk"

The information can be easily found.
Here

The page you were looking for doesn't exist.
You may have mistyped the address or the page may have moved.

Your link leads nowhere

However, this discussion would require another thread. Some are claiming that a part of the "junk" DNA is actually DNA whose function is unknown, while other scientists are claiming that it is "biological wasteland".

So they are essentially saying "we don't know" (which is logical). I strongly suspect that this is not the same as calling something "junk" (in fact, a far cry from). The history of science is full of stories (sometimes horrific) about something that had been considered completely unnecessary, obsolete or rudimentary, in other words, "junk" (by scientists, yeah)...

Until it was proved all wrong

Considering how useful some genes are and their functions, we can easily conclude that out "design" is very inefficient

I guess you pretty much don't know. And by your arrogance it is easy to guess that you don't know much overall

[BADecker]

So many people are doing the same logical fallacy (so called round-trip fallacy) again and again. If you don't understand something, it doesn't mean it is meaningless (still less junk). In short, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

This pertains to the original post as well (that about Mycoplasma)

What credentials do you have so that you can disprove the claims of other scientists? Rather than showing "superiority" how about actually posting references? Thank you.

I guess, you should at first prove that "scientists" (and not some brain-dead journalists) actually claimed something to the effect that "more than 2 billion [DNA entries] are junk" (rather than showing "superiority", wtf)...

Yes!

The whole realm of scientific evidence includes a whole lot of theory (fiction) right along with the things that are literally fact.

We need to see the actual proof in all directions, so we can sift out what the real and true fact is.

[celestio]

So many people are doing the same logical fallacy (so called round-trip fallacy) again and again. If you don't understand something, it doesn't mean it is meaningless (still less junk). In short, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

This pertains to the original post as well (that about Mycoplasma)

What credentials do you have so that you can disprove the claims of other scientists? Rather than showing "superiority" how about actually posting references? Thank you.

I guess, you should at first prove that "scientists" (and not some brain-dead journalists) actually claimed something to the effect that "more than 2 billion [DNA entries] are junk" (rather than showing "superiority", wtf)...

Yes!

The whole realm of scientific evidence includes a whole lot of theory (fiction) right along with the things that are literally fact.

We need to see the actual proof in all directions, so we can sift out what the real and true fact is.

Scientific evidence is to Religious beliefs what Magellan's then theory that the Earth isn't flat to the Church's previous belief that it was.
(Point is that common beliefs in religions tend to change slowly throughout time simply with the gain of knowledge thanks to science, partly showing the falseness of such religions)

[BADecker]

So many people are doing the same logical fallacy (so called round-trip fallacy) again and again. If you don't understand something, it doesn't mean it is meaningless (still less junk). In short, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

This pertains to the original post as well (that about Mycoplasma)

What credentials do you have so that you can disprove the claims of other scientists? Rather than showing "superiority" how about actually posting references? Thank you.

I guess, you should at first prove that "scientists" (and not some brain-dead journalists) actually claimed something to the effect that "more than 2 billion [DNA entries] are junk" (rather than showing "superiority", wtf)...

Yes!

The whole realm of scientific evidence includes a whole lot of theory (fiction) right along with the things that are literally fact.

We need to see the actual proof in all directions, so we can sift out what the real and true fact is.

Scientific evidence is to Religious beliefs what Magellan's then theory that the Earth isn't flat to the Church's previous belief that it was.
(Point is that common beliefs in religions tend to change slowly throughout time simply with the gain of knowledge thanks to science, partly showing the falseness of such religions)

Some of this is correct.

We don't know as fact where the universe came from.
We don't know as fact regarding how it came into being.
We also know that we are also tied to cause and effect in everything so that true random essentially doesn't exist.
We know that people's minds and thoughts are products of the causation of cause and effect.
We know by observation of how everything operates that everything is intelligently designed.
We know that stuff doesn't appear out of nowhere without a cause.

In other words, science knows very little about the basics. But what it DOES know suggests that there is an Intelligent Designer.