Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[the joint]

We simply don't believe anything that is not logical.

the funny thing is that logically, we shouldn't believe anything. the entire scope of human knowledge is tainted by subjective human perception -- meaning that we cannot obtain truth. we can only obtain what we perceive to be true. there can be no objective knowledge.

the answer? nihilism, of course.

whoa.

mind=blown. never thought about it like that, but it's sort of true -- how the hell can we really "know" anything, if our senses are not truly objective? interesting take. is that really what nihilism is?

Logic soundly shows us that that which is "objective" is fundamentally inseparable from the abstract theories/models we create about it.  In other words, it's ultimately not true that we can't really know anything.  Consider, for example, that even calling something "objective" is itself an abstract theory of what constitutes objective.

[the joint]

One model of reality that I'm thinking about goes like this:
There's a Turing machine and a Programmer.
The Turing machine doesn't know very much about rules or syntax. It just gets instructions from somewhere, which it runs automatically. There's no syntax-checking or filtering at that level. The machine occasionally gets stuck because of the Halting Problem, so this requires intervention from the Programmer to reset it. The Programmer might also have additional powers, such as being able to replicate itself, perhaps conjuring a higher self into existence as a workaround if it gets stuck resetting the machine in an infinite loop. Alternatively, it creates and delegates a lower self, but I guess that would be pretty similar.

The 'instructions' could be message data that we get from our senses in serialised form, presumably coming from another programmer entity, whom we don't have direct access to, but only via the message tape.

Rapid multiplication of the programmer selves could then pave the way for creating complex mental structures, out of something that had absolutely minimalistic rules. Far from being a nuisance, the undecidable parts of the software are what allow both sides (message and the messenger) to exist.

When you suggest that perhaps "the syntax -- or language rules -- that I speak of are created experimentally," you have to remember that, given this possibility, there must still be an unconditional and unchanging structure at play, i.e. what defines a rule.

In his theory, Langan describes a "one-to-many" mapping of real/Universal syntax, which would allow for the simultaneous possibility of various conditional syntactic systems at the "many" level while maintaining an unchanging syntax archetype at the "one" level.  The general structure of syntax or 'rule' still applies, but how this is expressed differs within the mapping.  

When you talk about the Programmer creating a 'higher self,' basically you're talking about omnipotence.  To create a 'higher self' would imply the creation of a self which is totally unbound by the syntax of the 'lower self,' but this is paradoxical to the fact that the 'lower self' must be unbound by the syntax of the 'higher self' in order to create it.  If the Programmer can actually do this, then he was omnipotent all along, and any 'higher self' is simply one of a many diversified essence of the 'omnipotent self' [archetype].  

That's why I called that entity a programmer rather than just a program. I don't know about omnipotence -- people sometimes seem eager to construct a straw man, talking about something being all-powerful but not clarifying what goes inside the "set of all powers". I'm just talking about a humble programmer whose known powers are only those that are exerted for the sake of maintaining separation from the machine.

Besides, what actual archetypes are we talking about? Not that I'm promoting a deistic world view, but an omnipotence archetype seems plausible. If it defies logic, then that's OK because it's omnipotent, it can do that sort of thing. Strangely enough, a few other candidates come to mind, which could make things really weird, like 'magic'. Magic tricks defy explanation, and if they can be explained, then they're not real magic. Magic in our minds could represent images of the ultimate 'Magic' archetype for things we don't understand. As we grow, we tend relabel everything as advanced technology and science. But it would be just be a trend, not a law of nature, and "there is no such thing as magic" is an unproven claim.

The archetype I'm talking about would be, in your scenario, isomorphic to the Programmer himself.  Omnipotence corresponds to total, unbound freedom relative to something.  The humble programmer, who could omnipotently introduce the creation of a 'higher self' to "maintain separation from the machine" introduces an omnipotence paradox within the systemic relationship between himself and the machine that can only be resolved at a higher level, and in the same way that metalanguages can be used to resolve paradoxes at an object-oriented level.  An omnipotence 'archetype' can thus be modeled as an algebraic construct that distributes to all systems in which such paradoxes necessarily arise, and that has the absolute capacity to resolve them.

Because a comprehensive explanation capable of resolving these paradoxes once-and-for-all would seem to introduce its own paradox (i.e. the algebraic construct itself is introduced as separate from its negation, and the two can never be rationally synthesized from within a rational argumentative context which could be modeled as an object-oriented system), we must conclude, for the sake of consistency, that the archetype itself is an absolute limit of explanation.  Any attempt to deny this limit would only serve to reinforce it, as the denial itself would necessarily assume the distributive characteristics of the archetype.

[Beliathon]

Logic soundly shows us that that which is "objective" is fundamentally inseparable from the abstract theories/models we create about it.  In other words, it's ultimately not true that we can't really know anything.  Consider, for example, that even calling something "objective" is itself an abstract theory of what constitutes objective.

It is commonly understood that the word "objective" in scientific terms translates roughly to "as objective as we can get in this life". Since no better standard is available to us, it makes sense to work with what we've got and not get too fussed about it.

Human Civilization will trod along slowly toward omniscience either way. And religion will die a slow death either way.

[popcorn1]

Because they say god said this and god said that when god said fuck all    logic plain and simple logic

[the joint]

Logic soundly shows us that that which is "objective" is fundamentally inseparable from the abstract theories/models we create about it.  In other words, it's ultimately not true that we can't really know anything.  Consider, for example, that even calling something "objective" is itself an abstract theory of what constitutes objective.

It is commonly understood that the word "objective" in scientific terms translates roughly to "as objective as we can get in this life". Since no better standard is available to us, it makes sense to work with what we've got and not get too fussed about it. Civilization will progress either way.

Science is predicated upon Empiricism, which is merely a theory of knowledge acquisition, i.e. that all we can possibly know is known through observational experience.  

Sounds lovely, but unfortunately this is a purely philosophical assumption and is empirically unfalsifiable.  In other words, Science doesn't even have the capacity to explore and conclude upon its own assumptions.  However, Philosophy does, and this very assumption was logically falsified thousands of years ago.  The only reason Science works is because it defers to Philosophy and an understanding of the limits of inductive reasoning in order to control for observer participation, i.e. it gains the ability to dismiss any effect an observer may have upon that which he observes, but must concede comprehensive explanation as part of the bargain.

In other words, yes, there is a better standard.  It's called logic.

[Beliathon]

Science is predicated upon Empiricism, which is merely a theory

Stopped reading here. You're embarrassing yourself. Just stop.

[the joint]

Science is predicated upon Empiricism, which is merely a theory

Stopped reading here. You're embarrassing yourself. Just stop.

Try again, hot shot.

em·pir·i·cism
əmˈpirəˌsizəm/
nounPHILOSOPHY
the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.

[muhrohmat]

dont forget communism connected to religion a vey hatefull thing to not just hitler

[Anony]

I don't hate any religion but yeah, some facts and rituals are quite unfair. Almost all religions have different rules for men and women. I don't think any religion should differentiate between two genders.

My religion as well has some facts I don't agree with. "If someone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other cheek as well." "If one doesn't go to the Church on every Sunday, he is a sinner".

Religion shouldn't make someone lose their self respect or make anything compulsory for a person else they are called sinners. I'm not an atheist but do criticize religion at times.

Religion means believing in GOD,making hope "one day we will get free from such disaster situation".But Atheists think different they don't need hope ,they just want to live their life they haven't tried faith on god OR tried but lose soon. .

[Anony]

I don't hate any religion but yeah, some facts and rituals are quite unfair. Almost all religions have different rules for men and women. I don't think any religion should differentiate between two genders.

My religion as well has some facts I don't agree with. "If someone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other cheek as well." "If one doesn't go to the Church on every Sunday, he is a sinner".

Religion shouldn't make someone lose their self respect or make anything compulsory for a person else they are called sinners. I'm not an atheist but do criticize religion at times.

Religion means believing in GOD,making hope "one day we will get free from such disaster situation".atheists are necessarily irreligious, but that’s not true they think different they don't need hope ,they just want to live their life they haven't tried faith on god OR tried but lose soon. .
Some atheists are part of a religion because some religions don’t require theism. Examples of this include Ethical Culture, Religious Humanism, Humanistic Judaism.

[cryptodevil]

But Atheists think different they don't need hope ,they just want to live their life they haven't tried faith on god OR tried but lose soon. .

Atheists haven't tried faith? I think you'll find most adult atheists were raised theists as children by their, equally conditioned to 'believe', theist parents.

Atheism isn't simply an arbitrary rejection, it is an intellectually honest position.

Most adult atheists today have got to that stage after having spent a considerable amount of their lives trying to make sense of the theist world-view and ultimately reaching the correct conclusion that theism, in that it requires intellectual dishonesty to be maintained, isn't actually knowledge of anything but is instead the process of giving yourself up to arbitrarily declared dogma derived from a time in our species when we weren't able to understand much of anything.

Shit, all you have to do is look at Scientology to see how, even today, people are often incapable of even the most basic reasoning skills and will latch on to truly outrageous and absurd claims being made by organisations and people who claim to have the answers to the questions of life for them.

That is because they have been raised to believe that someone, somewhere, has the answers they need. The truth is we all are perfectly capable of reaching the most intellectually honest conclusions about life, The Universe and Everything, without resorting to "therefore God . . ."

That what theists absolutely hate about atheism - because it doesn't say, "trust us, we're telling you the truth" like theism does, no, it actually says, "trust yourself, you can figure out the truth".

Theists are far more likely to get on with people of other faith because they're all part of the same game of playing-pretend *real* hard and us atheists are like the grown-ups who are spoiling their fun. Trouble is their 'fun' is deadly and toxic.

[Anony]

I don't hate any religion but yeah, some facts and rituals are quite unfair. Almost all religions have different rules for men and women. I don't think any religion should differentiate between two genders.

My religion as well has some facts I don't agree with. "If someone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other cheek as well." "If one doesn't go to the Church on every Sunday, he is a sinner".

Religion shouldn't make someone lose their self respect or make anything compulsory for a person else they are called sinners. I'm not an atheist but do criticize religion at times.

Religion means believing in GOD,making hope "one day we will get free from such disaster situation".atheists are necessarily irreligious, but that’s not true they think different they don't need hope ,they just want to live their life they haven't tried faith on god OR tried but lose soon. .
Some atheists are part of a religion because some religions don’t require theism. Examples of this include Ethical Culture, Religious Humanism, Humanistic Judaism.

[deisik]

Religion means believing in GOD,making hope "one day we will get free from such disaster situation".atheists are necessarily irreligious, but that’s not true they think different they don't need hope ,they just want to live their life they haven't tried faith on god OR tried but lose soon.

It is natural for people to hope for something. I guess that would be equal to believing in something, i.e. taking something as granted without second thought. Not believing requires an expenditure of mental effort which would make life unbearable and miserable if practiced in earnest, i.e. making it into a lifetime credo...

But that would still be founded on a belief of sorts

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Theists are far more likely to get on with people of other faith because they're all part of the same game of playing-pretend *real* hard and us atheists are like the grown-ups who are spoiling their fun. Trouble is their 'fun' is can be deadly and toxic.

FTFY.

As a Christian who believes in Thou Shalt Not Murder, and not judging others lest I be judged, I would never go up to someone and say you have to change your faith or murder. Some people people are like that, but you can't say all religious people are deadly and toxic, that just isn't true.

[Lauda]

It can only be considered abuse if you're lying. What if your religion is the correct one and atheists are wrong? Then it would be a little abusive to just let the child ignore that until they're older, after they've picked up bad habits and a feeling of pride, instead of being humble. It's hard to be humble (and thank God for your blessings) if you've been brought up to take pride in your works and good circumstances because of yourself alone.

Proverbs 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

James 4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

It should be considered a lie. Since you have zero evidence aside from an old book, and since you don't know anything you can't say it is true. Unless there is solid evidence that the religion is nothing but the truth, it should be considered abuse.
You're filling my naive head with nonsense when I'm young. Rather teach me something real, like science.

Please tell me how the church didn't insist on the geocentric system. 

[BADecker]

It can only be considered abuse if you're lying. What if your religion is the correct one and atheists are wrong? Then it would be a little abusive to just let the child ignore that until they're older, after they've picked up bad habits and a feeling of pride, instead of being humble. It's hard to be humble (and thank God for your blessings) if you've been brought up to take pride in your works and good circumstances because of yourself alone.

Proverbs 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

James 4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

It should be considered a lie. Since you have zero evidence aside from an old book, and since you don't know anything you can't say it is true. Unless there is solid evidence that the religion is nothing but the truth, it should be considered abuse.
You're filling my naive head with nonsense when I'm young. Rather teach me something real, like science.

Please tell me how the church didn't insist on the geocentric system.  

You talk so goofy.

We don't know where this universe comes from. Close to 100 percent of things like Big Bang theory and Evolution theory are science fiction. We don't know it is fact at all. We might hope, but we don't know.

This puts us back onto even ground. We see the universe and everything around us. But we have no clue just from looking at it where it comes from. Ideas, yes. But no real clue.

This makes science to be on an even keel with religion, BUT ONLY IF YOU DON'T EXAMINE THEM BOTH THOROUGHLY. If you examine science and Bible religion thoroughly, you find that Bible religion is much more plausible that science religion regarding where we and the universe come from. Why? Because it logically explains much more about everything than real, factual science even starts to explain.



EDIT: This is why those atheists who hate religion hate it. They keep butting their heads against the brick wall of reality, that there is far less reality in the things that they believe than the things that the theists believe.

[cryptodevil]

As a Christian who believes in Thou Shalt Not Murder, and not judging others lest I be judged, I would never go up to someone and say you have to change your faith or murder. Some people people are like that, but you can't say all religious people are deadly and toxic, that just isn't true.

Theism by its very nature is psychologically toxic because you absolutely have to maintain a state of intellectual dishonesty in order to 'believe', to have your 'faith', which causes cognitive dissonance when the part of your brain which is capable of objective reasoning is exposed to information which serves to highlight the constant conflicts in what you believe and what is evidenced .

Just because you declare yourself be a "True Christian" (try looking up the No True Scotsman fallacy), who believes in only the 'good' stuff from your Holy Book, it doesn't change the fact that your Holy Book is riddle with contradictions and inaccuracies which you have to tread carefully through in order to ignore it lest it exposes your cherished beliefs to be the fallacies they are.

I don't need an invisible ominpotent sky-daddy to tell me not to murder people, I have no inclination to murder people and I tend to live by the basis of objective secular morality, that which values the autonomy of consent whereby I cannot reasonably expect my consent to be honoured if I do not value the informed consent of others.

[jaysabi]

Close to 100 percent of things like Big Bang theory and Evolution theory are science fiction. We don't know it is fact at all.

....

This is why those atheists who hate religion hate it. They keep butting their heads against the brick wall of reality, that there is far less reality in the things that they believe than the things that the theists believe.

Just highlighting these two gems of wisdom that appeared in the same post, because they were made unironically and without intent to entertain.

[BADecker]

As a Christian who believes in Thou Shalt Not Murder, and not judging others lest I be judged, I would never go up to someone and say you have to change your faith or murder. Some people people are like that, but you can't say all religious people are deadly and toxic, that just isn't true.

Theism by its very nature is psychologically toxic because you absolutely have to maintain a state of intellectual dishonesty in order to 'believe', to have your 'faith', which causes cognitive dissonance when the part of your brain which is capable of objective reasoning is exposed to information which serves to highlight the constant conflicts in what you believe and what is evidenced .

Wow! Sounds like the masses of science theory.

Just because you declare yourself be a "True Christian" (try looking up the No True Scotsman fallacy), who believes in only the 'good' stuff from your Holy Book, it doesn't change the fact that your Holy Book is riddle with contradictions and inaccuracies which you have to tread carefully through in order to ignore it lest it exposes your cherished beliefs to be the fallacies they are.

A true Christian recognizes the fact that his faith in God isn't 100%, just as his knowledge about God isn't. This is part of what Christianity is about... salvation from God by God holding the Christian's faith strong enough so that the Christian is saved.

No "contradictions and inaccuracies." Only misunderstandings, lack of faith, and lies by those who would war against God.

I don't need an invisible ominpotent sky-daddy to tell me not to murder people, I have no inclination to murder people and I tend to live by the basis of objective secular morality, that which values the autonomy of consent whereby I cannot reasonably expect my consent to be honoured if I do not value the informed consent of others.

Yet it is the Invisible, Omnipotent "Sky-Daddy" Who wrote His laws on your heart at the time of your conception, just as He placed His laws in the hearts of all people. The fact that you are unwilling to obey the law on your heart that says that He exists, shows that you would willingly disobey the law against murder if you felt that you wanted to today.

[the joint]

As a Christian who believes in Thou Shalt Not Murder, and not judging others lest I be judged, I would never go up to someone and say you have to change your faith or murder. Some people people are like that, but you can't say all religious people are deadly and toxic, that just isn't true.

Theism by its very nature is psychologically toxic because you absolutely have to maintain a state of intellectual dishonesty in order to 'believe', to have your 'faith', which causes cognitive dissonance when the part of your brain which is capable of objective reasoning is exposed to information which serves to highlight the constant conflicts in what you believe and what is evidenced .

Wow! Sounds like the masses of science theory.

Just because you declare yourself be a "True Christian" (try looking up the No True Scotsman fallacy), who believes in only the 'good' stuff from your Holy Book, it doesn't change the fact that your Holy Book is riddle with contradictions and inaccuracies which you have to tread carefully through in order to ignore it lest it exposes your cherished beliefs to be the fallacies they are.

A true Christian recognizes the fact that his faith in God isn't 100%, just as his knowledge about God isn't. This is part of what Christianity is about... salvation from God by God holding the Christian's faith strong enough so that the Christian is saved.

No "contradictions and inaccuracies." Only misunderstandings, lack of faith, and lies by those who would war against God.

I don't need an invisible ominpotent sky-daddy to tell me not to murder people, I have no inclination to murder people and I tend to live by the basis of objective secular morality, that which values the autonomy of consent whereby I cannot reasonably expect my consent to be honoured if I do not value the informed consent of others.

Yet it is the Invisible, Omnipotent "Sky-Daddy" Who wrote His laws on your heart at the time of your conception, just as He placed His laws in the hearts of all people. The fact that you are unwilling to obey the law on your heart that says that He exists, shows that you would willingly disobey the law against murder if you felt that you wanted to today.

Potatoes:

But we have no clue just from looking at it where it comes from. Ideas, yes. But no real clue.

Potahtoes:

Yet it is the Invisible, Omnipotent "Sky-Daddy" Who wrote His laws on your heart at the time of your conception, just as He placed His laws in the hearts of all people.

Would you make up your mind already?