Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[deisik]

Here's a task for you: Name one -- just one -- example of something that has been affirmed to exist outside a theory of that thing existing.  Anything!  Just one!  Never in the history of human kind has something been affirmed to be true outside of a theory, because what is true corresponds to a true theory!

Something that exists needs neither theory nor confirmation. It exists since it exists (as you would put it), independent of whether I believe in it or not, whether I build theories around it or not. It may exist though I might prefer that it didn't...

Or I may not even know about it

Asserting something exists is a theoretical confirmation.  "It exists" is a theory of "it."

I do not assert that something exists. In fact, I don't care, in an abstract sense (unless I'm particularly interested that it actually does). How can my idea (or lack thereof) whether it exists or not, interfere with its objective existence? On the other hand, if I begin asserting that something doesn't exist (say, in an effort to conceal something), what does it change?

But ultimately it is irrelevant, since, say, cancer kept on killing people as effectively when they got an idea about it as it had been doing when they did not have a clue about it. Was it non-existent when people knew nothing about it, and if it was (non-existent) why people still died from it?

Thereby I begin to consider that you are misusing the notion of existence (that of objective being) as you see appropriate to your ideas...

[1714051492]

1714051492

[1714051492]

1714051492

[1714051492]

1714051492

[1714051492]

1714051492

[1714051492]

1714051492

[the joint]

Look, yesterday you were pretending that your reasoning cannot be falsified by any means, as well as making bold statements that you were telling the absolute truths (or something to that tune). Today you seem to have agreed about a possibility (I'd rather say a necessity) that there might (I'd say should) exist higher logic that may render your assertions either incomplete or outright invalid. Should I conclude that what you said yesterday may not be true (about the infallibility of your logic)?

This is what I see

The two do not contradict each other.  Conceding to a possibility of some higher level of logic is not inconsistent with saying that we can know absolutely what is true and not true in terms of our own mind and brand of logic in relation to Reality (Edit: Or, to absolutely know what we absolutely cannot know).

I suspect this is not quite the same what you were previously saying. You didn't say that you could know what is true and what is not. In fact, you claimed that you actually knew what is true ("Maybe you will never know, but I do. Sorry"), such was the tone of posts. Do you see the difference, or should I start quoting your whole posts?

Now you are apparently backpedaling this issue

No, I said like three times that we can know what is true absolutely in terms of our mind/brand of logic as it relates to the reality we inhabit.  Then I also referenced the quantum mechanics analogy a couple times to explain what it would be like to entertain the idea of rationalizing about something in the context of a logic higher than our own.  You're being extremely selective in the bits and pieces you're choosing to respond to, but I think we can agree that I have responded directly to virtually all of your contentions.  Please, re-quote my posts, or I can do the same to show you where I have addressed these issues (I mean this seriously, not patronizingly).

I also mentioned in previous posts that knowing something absolutely can also include "knowing absolutely what we cannot know absolutely."

[the joint]

Here's a task for you: Name one -- just one -- example of something that has been affirmed to exist outside a theory of that thing existing.  Anything!  Just one!  Never in the history of human kind has something been affirmed to be true outside of a theory, because what is true corresponds to a true theory!

Something that exists needs neither theory nor confirmation. It exists since it exists (as you would put it), independent of whether I believe in it or not, whether I build theories around it or not. It may exist though I might prefer that it didn't...

Or I may not even know about it

Asserting something exists is a theoretical confirmation.  "It exists" is a theory of "it."

I do not assert that something exists. In fact, I don't care, in an abstract sense (unless I'm particularly interested that it actually does). How can my idea (or lack thereof) whether it exists or not, interfere with its objective existence?

You have no basis to assume it has an objective existence independent of your mind.  I already explained how you are making a "totally unnecessary and wholly unfalsifiable assumption," and then explained why it is unfalsifiable.

On the other hand, if I begin asserting that something doesn't exist (say, in an effort to conceal something), what does it change?

I'm not sure I understand this question.  What matters is whether your assertion is consistent and verifiable.

But ultimately it is irrelevant, since, say, cancer kept on killing people as effectively when they got an idea about it as it had been doing when they did not have a clue about it. Was it non-existent when people knew nothing about it, and if it was (non-existent) why people still died from it?

Until the point at which someone verifies a person has cancerous cells in their body, then nobody knows whether they have cancer or not.  A person may be aware of subtle (or drastic) changes to their experience of being just prior to verifying that they have cancer, but you cannot conclude before verification that a person has cancer, or that they died from it.

Thereby I begin to consider that you are misusing the notion of existence (that of objective being) as you see appropriate to your ideas...

Assuming you've never taken the appropriate measures to verify for yourself, do you have cancer right now?  Can you answer that question definitively unless you've verified it?  Furthermore, can you verify this independent of your mindful awareness of it?

[deisik]

But ultimately it is irrelevant, since, say, cancer kept on killing people as effectively when they got an idea about it as it had been doing when they did not have a clue about it. Was it non-existent when people knew nothing about it, and if it was (non-existent) why people still died from it?

Until the point at which someone verifies a person has cancerous cells in their body, then nobody knows whether they have cancer or not.  A person may be aware of subtle (or drastic) changes to their experience of being just prior to verifying that they have cancer, but you cannot conclude before verification that a person has cancer, or that they died from it.

I see that you are trying to subtly switch contexts. I talked about the existence of cancer as a malady even before people knew anything about this disease. Now you are talking about whether an individual knows he has cancer or not. Yes, people had cancer in ancient times, which has been verified in present times by finding various cancer tumors in Egyptian and South American mummies. So I have to repeat my question, did cancer exist back then when people knew nothing about it (and thus couldn't verify it)?

It seems that your theory of mental awareness of a thing as a prerequisite for its existence fails a reality check

[stallion]

-Update-
My story


I was a kid raised up in a brahmin Hindu family, its one of those most 'pure' casts you could find in the Hindu society, offcourse every branch of the brahmin cast claims to be such but 'Chatterjee' or 'Chattopadhyay' s are the top ones - or so I ve been told.
So with that backdrop you can pretty much say that I had the most stringiest of religious teachings one could ever get.

Being a brahmin kid, traditionally you have to go through a ritual or a sort of rite of passage called 'poita' in bengali or Upanayana in sanskrit. This has to be done before the age of 15 and no earlier than the age of 7.

So I remember as the days went by my parents were beginning to talk more & more about this rite of passage how my father had to go bald and stay with a step mother (part of the ritual - no that mother has no relationship with the father of the pupil) and has to beg around and eat only boiled vegetables through out these days. Obviously this was getting kinda scary for me, I was already the odd fat kid in school and the thought of getting more attention because of a bald head was nerve wracking for me. Among all the discussions that my father and I had I remember him vaguely mentioning that only when I go through this ritual would I be called a purified soul reborn on earth worthy of going to heaven.

That got me thinking, it was a bewildering fact for me which I couldnt get my head around. I and only all the other brahmin kids had a free ticket to heaven while the rest are automatically considered unworthy ? What about my best friend who had a surname of Moitra ? What about that girl I had a crush on with a surname of Kundu, wait a second, "what about mom?" I asked my father.
I remember this distinctly as my father explained to me that girls dont have a caste, they belong to the man they marry and since my mother was married to him she will be worthy of going to heaven with him. But what if she married a muslim ?? Dont remember if I ever asked this back then but I certainly did have this thought from around the same time.

This did not sit well with me, I began questioning every aspect of 'Poita' my tantrums got so bad that my parents eventually considered to not force me to go through this ritual. However, my tantrums back then were fueled by the desire of eating chicken.

But this small victory of not getting the poita was a good enough spark in my mind to raise questions on all aspects of religion.
Then at the age of nine, I got the greatest gift I ever thought I could get in my life; Cable TV and with it the Discovery channel.

Hence began my journey into the world of science, off course we had physics / chemistry / maths in our schools but for the first time all of it actually meant something to me. I was fascinated by how gravity works. I was spellbound when I first saw an animated version of the milky way. I found out that there was a real person named Pythagoras. Basically cable TV was the fuel that my spark required to become a full fledged atheist.

.. and that is my story.

Wow, that's so inspirational to read. You're a very interesting human and a great motivation. God bless your soul.

[the joint]

But ultimately it is irrelevant, since, say, cancer kept on killing people as effectively when they got an idea about it as it had been doing when they did not have a clue about it. Was it non-existent when people knew nothing about it, and if it was (non-existent) why people still died from it?

Until the point at which someone verifies a person has cancerous cells in their body, then nobody knows whether they have cancer or not.  A person may be aware of subtle (or drastic) changes to their experience of being just prior to verifying that they have cancer, but you cannot conclude before verification that a person has cancer, or that they died from it.

I see that you are trying to subtly switch contexts. I talked about the existence of cancer as a malady even before people knew anything about this disease. Now you are talking about whether an individual knows he has cancer or not. Yes, people had cancer in ancient times, which has been verified in present times by finding various cancer tumors in Egyptian and South American mummies. So I have to repeat my question, did cancer exist back then when people knew nothing about it (and thus couldn't verify it)?

It seems that your theory of mental awareness of a thing as a prerequisite for its existence fails a reality check

I'm not switching contexts at all.  It's a simple point that one can not know whether something exists or not without verification.  So, did cancer exist back then?  Well, let's consider the question from two perspectives, ours and theirs.

From our perspective, we have evidence of mummies, and we have evidence of a cancerous tumors in those mummies.  Practically, this evidence suggests that, yes, cancer did exist back then, and may have been the cause of their deaths.  We know this (practically) because we 1) have verified the evidence, and 2) have applied the rules of inductive inference to conclude that these mummies had cancer, and this conclusion comes with a very, very high level of confidence.

Ultimately, from a strictly rationalist point of view (which often appears to conflict with practical reasoning), what we can absolutely conclude is that we have evidence of mummies with tumors in them.  Practcally, we conclude these mummies were alive and died with cancer in them, which aligns with what we know about cancer and mummies.  Ultimately, we can't conclude these mummies were ever alive to begin with (though again, practically, it would be silly to ignore the evidence).

From the mummies' perspective (granting their prior living existence), they wouldn't know, because they presumably couldn't know. You have to accept this. The answer depends upon the perspective and what is verifiable.

[deisik]

From our perspective, we have evidence of mummies, and we have evidence of a cancerous tumors in those mummies.  Practically, this evidence suggests that, yes, cancer did exist back then, and may have been the cause of their deaths.  We know this (practically) because we 1) have verified the evidence, and 2) have applied the rules of inductive inference to conclude that these mummies had cancer, and this conclusion comes with a very, very high level of confidence.

From the mummies' perspective (granting their prior living existence), they wouldn't know, because they presumably couldn't know. You have to accept this. The answer depends upon the perspective and what is verifiable.

So what you say boils down to subjective existence (as opposed to objective existence), that is, something exists only as long as we think it exists. Yes, I am familiar with that point of view. No, I do not share this view. I guess you will have to accept this...

[the joint]

From our perspective, we have evidence of mummies, and we have evidence of a cancerous tumors in those mummies.  Practically, this evidence suggests that, yes, cancer did exist back then, and may have been the cause of their deaths.  We know this (practically) because we 1) have verified the evidence, and 2) have applied the rules of inductive inference to conclude that these mummies had cancer, and this conclusion comes with a very, very high level of confidence.

From the mummies' perspective (granting their prior living existence), they wouldn't know, because they presumably couldn't know. You have to accept this. The answer depends upon the perspective and what is verifiable.

So what you say boils down to subjective existence (as opposed to objective existence), that is, something exists only as long as we think it exists. Yes, I am familiar with that point of view. No, I do not share this view. I guess you will have to accept this...

No.  It boils down to the fact that subjective and objective are homogenized at a fundamental level...that objective content is ultimately inseparable from the mental constructs that describe them.  You're a huge fan of dichotomies, and I'm encouraging you not to be.  You're not familiar with this point of view because you keep trying to cram your square peg into a round hole.  Something is known to exist after it has been verified.  You can't know what you can't verify, and you can't verify what you aren't aware of, and so you can't objectify anything without being aware of it.  Therefore, what is objectively known is utterly dependent upon subjective awareness or "mind."  This does NOT, however, means it loses objectivity.  Rather, you just have a poor understanding of objectivity.

Edit:  Consider the syntax of our own language and what is required for meaning.  Consider the following (non)sentence: "Apple."  This means nothing by itself.  An apple, we know, is an object, but it is a completely meaningless object unless it is related to some subject.  Now consider the sentence: "An apple is a fruit."  Now, broken down: "An apple (subject) is a fruit (object)."  Meaning is derived from a subject-object relationship. This sets a 'ratio' (the root word of "rationale") between the subject and object so we can make sense of it.  Objectivity by itself is meaningless in the way you describe it.  You're failing to consider that, for objectivity to be in any way meaningful, it must be fundamentally inseparable from subjectivity.

Edit 2:  Another, more primordial example, is the self-evident process of metacognition whereby we, as subjects, objectify ourselves in a self-referential process.  We derive meaning in our lives and form a meaningful self-concept through this process whereby we, as subjects, objectify ourselves [e.g. "I (subject) am a subject (object)."].   And voila! -- Subjectivity objectified 

[jackyrozario]

Atheist its not hate Religion, they just not believe the existence of god  Grin.
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  Cheesy.
That's just my opinion because i am not Atheists.

[deisik]

Edit:  Consider the syntax of our own language and what is required for meaning.  Consider the following (non)sentence: "Apple."  This means nothing by itself.  An apple, we know, is an object, but it is a completely meaningless object unless it is related to some subject.  Now consider the sentence: "An apple is a fruit."  Now, broken down: "An apple (subject) is a fruit (object)."  Meaning is derived from a subject-object relationship. This sets a 'ratio' (the root word of "rationale") between the subject and object so we can make sense of it.  Objectivity by itself is meaningless in the way you describe it.  You're failing to consider that, for objectivity to be in any way meaningful, it must be fundamentally inseparable from subjectivity.

Objects are not "made" to be meaningful (or meaningless, for that matter) by themselves. You, at first, try to ascribe to them some qualitative category (namely, that of possessing a meaning), which they don't have, and then, on that basis, make them appear as incomplete since they allegedly lack in a property of that category. Meaning is purely subjective, objects, on the contrary, are neither meaningful nor meaningless...

In short, what you say about subjective and objective having the same root seems to make even less sense than your ideas about determinism

[pureelite]

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.

Lack of evidence; to be honest, i've met several people who don't believe in anything just because it is mainstream, not because they have any significant reason.

[Beliathon]

It's not so much religion that I despise, it's the brainwashing of innocent children during formative years that I find ethically repugnant. All around the world they are ruining minds, warping and perverting critical thinking circuits with lies.

Religion would be dead and gone long ago if our civilization strictly forbid religious brainwashing, and only taught basic critical reasoning skills up through age 14. So too would the state, if we also forbid nationalist indoctrination in schools.

A compassionate society of the world is waiting for us, all we have to do is want it badly enough and it will be ours. I know this to be true, for this place already exists in the hearts of many alive today, we have visited it in our imaginations.



Yours in compassion and solidarity,

World Citizen Beliathon

[mikaljan]

A lot of those kinds of atheists had been religious at one stage and had a reaction considerably the same as an event that causes people to be racist.

Anyway, they end up hating religion because of what religion did to them.

Personally I'm deist, I believing in God but I was never naive enough to be brainwashed into some pathetic religion and used and controlled like some atheists were, so I never grew up to resent the belief in God, yet I still remain rational in my beliefs.

[lister storm]

i don't think people hate a specific religion
they just hate bad people that can be found any where

[Beliathon]

Personally I'm deist, I believing in God but I was never naive enough to be brainwashed into some pathetic religion and used and controlled like some atheists were, so I never grew up to resent the belief in God, yet I still remain rational in my beliefs.

You think religion is despised only by those brainwashed (mentally abused) by it? How easily you forget all those who were/are physically abused on religious grounds.

Rape and torture by disciples of religion are not uncommon throughout the world, even now. Superstition is the enemy of reason, and therefore the ally of violence. Doubly true for women.

Go watch India's daughter and see the results of superstitious society.

[the joint]

Edit:  Consider the syntax of our own language and what is required for meaning.  Consider the following (non)sentence: "Apple."  This means nothing by itself.  An apple, we know, is an object, but it is a completely meaningless object unless it is related to some subject.  Now consider the sentence: "An apple is a fruit."  Now, broken down: "An apple (subject) is a fruit (object)."  Meaning is derived from a subject-object relationship. This sets a 'ratio' (the root word of "rationale") between the subject and object so we can make sense of it.  Objectivity by itself is meaningless in the way you describe it.  You're failing to consider that, for objectivity to be in any way meaningful, it must be fundamentally inseparable from subjectivity.

Objects are not "made" to be meaningful (or meaningless, for that matter) by themselves. You, at first, try to ascribe to them some qualitative category (namely, that of possessing a meaning), which they don't have, and then, on that basis, make them appear as incomplete since they allegedly lack in a property of that category. Meaning is purely subjective, objects, on the contrary, are neither meaningful nor meaningless...

In short, what you say about subjective and objective having the same root seems to make even less sense than your ideas about determinism

1) Correct, objects are not made meaningful or meaningless by themselves.  Information of any kind is utterly meaningless unless it is processed by some entity capable of processing and rendering that information in a meaningful way.  Thus...

2) ...I am not ascribing them any intrinsic meaning in and of themselves as you suggest.  Although, I would like to point out that you seem to be making some very definitive claims about the nature of objects in general, which goes against your favoritism towards indeterminism as an explanatory model (i.e. you are determining their meaning).

3) Again, meaning is derived from a subject-object relationship.  You seem to acknowledge this by claiming that objects are neither meaningful nor meaningless (see #1).

4) If you acknowledge #3, then you should also acknowledge that you cannot say objects (like cancer) can exist (imbuing them with your own meaning) outside of subjective awareness.

[deisik]

2) ...I am not ascribing them any intrinsic meaning in and of themselves as you suggest.  Although, I would like to point out that you seem to be making some very definitive claims about the nature of objects in general, which goes against your favoritism towards indeterminism as an explanatory model (i.e. you are determining their meaning).

If you meant to say that I, as a subject, determine the meaning of things (e.g. their usefulness in achieving my ends), then yes, I am. But I don't see how that goes against my favoritism toward indeterminism

3) Again, meaning is derived from a subject-object relationship.  You seem to acknowledge this by claiming that objects are neither meaningful nor meaningless (see #1).

4) If you acknowledge #3, then you should also acknowledge that you cannot say objects (like cancer) can exist (imbuing them with your own meaning) outside of subjective awareness.

That I cannot agree with. If I determine the meaning of things, it doesn't mean that I determine their existence since meaning is subjective (me), existence is objective (thing). In other words, existence is an intrinsic quality of things while meaning is not. Removing the former from a thing would be equal to destroying it, while changing the latter does nothing to it and its existence (since meaning is not an intrinsic characteristic of it)...

[the joint]

2) ...I am not ascribing them any intrinsic meaning in and of themselves as you suggest.  Although, I would like to point out that you seem to be making some very definitive claims about the nature of objects in general, which goes against your favoritism towards indeterminism as an explanatory model (i.e. you are determining their meaning).

If you meant to say that I, as a subject, determine the meaning of things to me (e.g. their usefulness in achieving my ends), then yes, I am. But I don't see how that goes against my favoritism toward indeterminism

3) Again, meaning is derived from a subject-object relationship.  You seem to acknowledge this by claiming that objects are neither meaningful nor meaningless (see #1).

4) If you acknowledge #3, then you should also acknowledge that you cannot say objects (like cancer) can exist (imbuing them with your own meaning) outside of subjective awareness.

They I cannot agree with. If I determine the meaning of things (to me), it doesn't mean that I determine their existence since meaning is subjective, existence is objective. In other words, existence is an intrinsic quality of things while meaning is not (removing this quality from a thing would be equal to destroying it)...

1)  The mere existence of something is meaningful.  That is, if you assert something exists, then it is imbued with meaning, and it is your awareness of its existant form that determines, in tandem with each other, that 1) it exists, and 2) to that extent (at the very least) it is meaningful.  Existence and meaning are a package deal.

2)

...it doesn't mean I determine their existence...

Yes it does.  See #1.  

Edit 2:  Another, more primordial example, is the self-evident process of metacognition whereby we, as subjects, objectify ourselves in a self-referential process.  We derive meaning in our lives and form a meaningful self-concept through this process whereby we, as subjects, objectify ourselves [e.g. "I (subject) am a subject (object)."].   And voila! -- Subjectivity objectified  

[deisik]

2) ...I am not ascribing them any intrinsic meaning in and of themselves as you suggest.  Although, I would like to point out that you seem to be making some very definitive claims about the nature of objects in general, which goes against your favoritism towards indeterminism as an explanatory model (i.e. you are determining their meaning).

If you meant to say that I, as a subject, determine the meaning of things to me (e.g. their usefulness in achieving my ends), then yes, I am. But I don't see how that goes against my favoritism toward indeterminism

3) Again, meaning is derived from a subject-object relationship.  You seem to acknowledge this by claiming that objects are neither meaningful nor meaningless (see #1).

4) If you acknowledge #3, then you should also acknowledge that you cannot say objects (like cancer) can exist (imbuing them with your own meaning) outside of subjective awareness.

They I cannot agree with. If I determine the meaning of things (to me), it doesn't mean that I determine their existence since meaning is subjective, existence is objective. In other words, existence is an intrinsic quality of things while meaning is not (removing this quality from a thing would be equal to destroying it)...

1)  The mere existence of something is meaningful.  That is, if you assert something exists, then it is imbued with meaning, and it is your awareness of its existant form that determines, in tandem with each other, that it 1) it exists, and 2) to that extent (at the very least) it is meaningful.  Existence and meaning are a package deal.

Now you go where you started at. I don't want to repeat what I have said earlier. If I assert that something exists, or otherwise ascribe some meaning to it (since that seems to be your point), this by no means affects the objective existence of a thing. In this way, asserting the existence of something is not the same as its objective existence, which is not dependent on someone assigning a meaning to it (or just stating that it exists)...

It seems that you got lost in purposeless verbiage

[Beliathon]

A mind that worships imaginary gods is unlikely to recognize that Homo Sapiens are the only true gods of Earth. This is catastrophic, and part of the reason we are still such awful stewards for this place.