Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[MakingMoneyHoney]

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.

I don't have zero evidence aside from an old book. I've seen and felt things that give me evidence that it's true. The problem with me saying that to anyone who doesn't believe, is they'll just think I'm crazy. There's as much solid evidence for me to believe in Christianity as science can get to explain the world. I've seen examples in the real world that play out with the hypothesis that Christianity is true. It's already been discussed here, that everything in the scientific field is limited by our perceptions of the world and our perceptions of the results of scientific testing. Also Christianity explains things science cannot, IMHO.

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.

What I said should not be considered the No True Scotsman fallacy. Because I was arguing that not all regions are deadly and toxic, I was arguing SOME are not when you were saying all were. It's still true that some are not.

I believe in the bible (I've read the whole thing except psalms which I'm working on now). I'm sure if you brought up examples for contradictions, I could clearly explain them all, but here's a little verse about why I won't:

Matthew 7:6 “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces." I'm sure you'll say that's because I couldn't. But I know there is no changing some people's minds. I'm not going to waste my time, when there are better things to do than talk to a wall (closed mind).

I'm glad you don't need someone to tell you not to murder people, but I never said you did...

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 wouldn't say that. I have always had faith in God, 100%. I did one time, really, truly think about what if there wasn't a God, but my faith was never shaken. Some people do get the spiritual gift of faith.

1 Corinthians 12:8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit

[1714141150]

1714141150

[1714141150]

1714141150

[1714141150]

1714141150

[Buffer Overflow]

A true Christian recognizes the fact that his faith in God isn't 100%, just as his knowledge about God isn't.

I wouldn't say that. I have always had faith in God, 100%. I did one time, really, truly think about what if there wasn't a God, but my faith was never shaken.

Extremely rare event going on here, I actually agree with BADecker on his never 100% point.
Surely if faith was at 100% then it would no longer be faith, it would be proof? Maybe I'm wrong on this.

[the joint]

A true Christian recognizes the fact that his faith in God isn't 100%, just as his knowledge about God isn't.

I wouldn't say that. I have always had faith in God, 100%. I did one time, really, truly think about what if there wasn't a God, but my faith was never shaken.

Extremely rare event going on here, I actually agree with BADecker on his never 100% point.
Surely if faith was at 100% then it would no longer be faith, it would be proof? Maybe I'm wrong on this.

If no faith = doubt, or uncrtainty (e.g. I don't have faith in the Cubs)...

Then pure faith = lack of doubt, or certainty

To what degree this is just semantics, I don't know.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

A true Christian recognizes the fact that his faith in God isn't 100%, just as his knowledge about God isn't.

I wouldn't say that. I have always had faith in God, 100%. I did one time, really, truly think about what if there wasn't a God, but my faith was never shaken.

Extremely rare event going on here, I actually agree with BADecker on his never 100% point.
Surely if faith was at 100% then it would no longer be faith, it would be proof? Maybe I'm wrong on this.

A true Christian recognizes the fact that his faith in God isn't 100%, just as his knowledge about God isn't.

I wouldn't say that. I have always had faith in God, 100%. I did one time, really, truly think about what if there wasn't a God, but my faith was never shaken.

Extremely rare event going on here, I actually agree with BADecker on his never 100% point.
Surely if faith was at 100% then it would no longer be faith, it would be proof? Maybe I'm wrong on this.

If no faith = doubt, or uncrtainty (e.g. I don't have faith in the Cubs)...

Then pure faith = lack of doubt, or certainty

To what degree this is just semantics, I don't know.

Yes, pure faith is certainty, it is not proof.

As I have a certainty that God exists, I can not prove it to someone else.

I find it hard to say no one has 100% faith, when I've never not believed in God existing... does that mean I don't exist?

[BADecker]

A true Christian recognizes the fact that his faith in God isn't 100%, just as his knowledge about God isn't.

I wouldn't say that. I have always had faith in God, 100%. I did one time, really, truly think about what if there wasn't a God, but my faith was never shaken.

Extremely rare event going on here, I actually agree with BADecker on his never 100% point.
Surely if faith was at 100% then it would no longer be faith, it would be proof? Maybe I'm wrong on this.

A true Christian recognizes the fact that his faith in God isn't 100%, just as his knowledge about God isn't.

I wouldn't say that. I have always had faith in God, 100%. I did one time, really, truly think about what if there wasn't a God, but my faith was never shaken.

Extremely rare event going on here, I actually agree with BADecker on his never 100% point.
Surely if faith was at 100% then it would no longer be faith, it would be proof? Maybe I'm wrong on this.

If no faith = doubt, or uncrtainty (e.g. I don't have faith in the Cubs)...

Then pure faith = lack of doubt, or certainty

To what degree this is just semantics, I don't know.

Yes, pure faith is certainty, it is not proof.

As I have a certainty that God exists, I can not prove it to someone else.

I find it hard to say no one has 100% faith, when I've never not believed in God existing... does that mean I don't exist?

That's the trick, isn't it? When you look at 100% of your faith, it is 100%. When you look at 100% of your doubt, it also is 100%. When you look at yourself, you see that you have both faith and doubt.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

A true Christian recognizes the fact that his faith in God isn't 100%, just as his knowledge about God isn't.

I wouldn't say that. I have always had faith in God, 100%. I did one time, really, truly think about what if there wasn't a God, but my faith was never shaken.

Extremely rare event going on here, I actually agree with BADecker on his never 100% point.
Surely if faith was at 100% then it would no longer be faith, it would be proof? Maybe I'm wrong on this.

A true Christian recognizes the fact that his faith in God isn't 100%, just as his knowledge about God isn't.

I wouldn't say that. I have always had faith in God, 100%. I did one time, really, truly think about what if there wasn't a God, but my faith was never shaken.

Extremely rare event going on here, I actually agree with BADecker on his never 100% point.
Surely if faith was at 100% then it would no longer be faith, it would be proof? Maybe I'm wrong on this.

If no faith = doubt, or uncrtainty (e.g. I don't have faith in the Cubs)...

Then pure faith = lack of doubt, or certainty

To what degree this is just semantics, I don't know.

Yes, pure faith is certainty, it is not proof.

As I have a certainty that God exists, I can not prove it to someone else.

I find it hard to say no one has 100% faith, when I've never not believed in God existing... does that mean I don't exist?

That's the trick, isn't it? When you look at 100% of your faith, it is 100%. When you look at 100% of your doubt, it also is 100%. When you look at yourself, you see that you have both faith and doubt.

I don't have doubt that God exists though, never did.

But who cares about me? Obviously that's pretty rare and I would never suggest that most people are that way. I just don't like it when people give 100% to something that's not.

[cryptodevil]

I don't have zero evidence aside from an old book. I've seen and felt things that give me evidence that it's true. The problem with me saying that to anyone who doesn't believe, is they'll just think I'm crazy.

Not at all, they'll understand completely how you have been conditioned to apply special pleading to your beliefs so they are not held up to the same standard of analysis as anything we actually need to define objective proof for in order to gather information and form knowledge and understanding. That you employ compartmentalisation to protect your beliefs and use confirmation bias to cherry-pick explanations of reality that suit you, rather than intellectual honesty and integrity.

This is not an insult, this is a fact of the process of theist 'belief'.

You want to make hand-wavy declarations concerning things you've 'experienced' which defy explanation, therefore God. When the truth is they don't defy explanation at all because if there was even one thing, just one, which could objectively demonstrate the existence of the Paranormal, it would be global news and science would accede to this new, now proven theory which required incorporation into our understanding of The Universe.

There is, however, a shedload of evidence and reasoning which explains why you and your ilk believe what you do and are prone to interpreting things the way you do.

So which is more likely, rational and objectively-reasoned explanations which are derived from multiple sources of study and critical analysis, or that you actually experienced something for which there is no other answer than, ". . .therefore God."?

[cryptodevil]

Actually I've just found an awesome J&M which references a reddit post describing perfectly what religious belief is driven by:

[blablahblah]

A true Christian recognizes the fact that his faith in God isn't 100%, just as his knowledge about God isn't.

I wouldn't say that. I have always had faith in God, 100%. I did one time, really, truly think about what if there wasn't a God, but my faith was never shaken.

Extremely rare event going on here, I actually agree with BADecker on his never 100% point.
Surely if faith was at 100% then it would no longer be faith, it would be proof? Maybe I'm wrong on this.

If no faith = doubt, or uncrtainty (e.g. I don't have faith in the Cubs)...

Then pure faith = lack of doubt, or certainty

To what degree this is just semantics, I don't know.

Even if it is semantics, I think there's an important point that many people seem to overlook: different understanding of the words, leading to greater misunderstandings about what they're disagreeing about.

For instance, faith sounds like a synonym for trust. (Not that that helps because 'trust' would be another word that some people have completely burnt out of their system.)

Faith: a submissive act of acknowledging or sensing vulnerability about a greater power in our lives.
Knowledge: a comforting sense of certainty, familiarity, or empowerment, provided by some kind of recognition (e.g.: new evidence is in agreement with existing dogmas.)

A couple of others:
Trust: "to trust someone", e.g.: having faith that a person will be friendly in spite of a lack of evidence.
Certainty, Confidence: labels to acknowledge and describe the "thing" that is the sense of conviction of knowing. Certainty and confidence would refer to the same type of thing, but they differ in the degree in which they describe it.

--------------
Edit:
Incidentally, these definitions have far-reaching implications, as it sort-of turns the tables in the religious debate.
Modern agnostics would be old-school "faithful" by acknowledging there are some things they just don't know, whereas the religious crowd would be heretical due to their moral crime of overconfidence.

[Lauda]

I don't have zero evidence aside from an old book. I've seen and felt things that give me evidence that it's true. The problem with me saying that to anyone who doesn't believe, is they'll just think I'm crazy. There's as much solid evidence for me to believe in Christianity as science can get to explain the world. I've seen examples in the real world that play out with the hypothesis that Christianity is true. It's already been discussed here, that everything in the scientific field is limited by our perceptions of the world and our perceptions of the results of scientific testing. Also Christianity explains things science cannot, IMHO.

That's just the delusion. I've seen unicorns on a mountain far far away, but nobody is going to believe that story. How does this sound to you? I've also experienced and seen things while meditating that I can't even properly describe.

Should I tell everyone that "god" has contacted me and that I'm going to be your next savior? Just because you feel or see something that you can't describe you can't say that it is "god" since you don't know.

[GregH37]

According  to Silas (member of yahoo answers)

Most of the atheists that I have heard or seen think that people that believe in any religion (Christianity for the most part) are idiots, bad people, or crazy. Now I'm sure there are atheists that don't think this way but I haven't seen or heard from one that doesn't. I am a Christian but have no problem with people who are gay,atheist, or from a different religion. From what I've experienced atheists think that religion is a social issue and believe that religion is the cause of war,violence, and such. When most religions are against such things. I just want to know why atheists have to think this way and why cant all people just live to respect each other and why atheists believe that the sooner religion is gone the better.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090327202028AAkUAN3

[MakingMoneyHoney]

I don't have zero evidence aside from an old book. I've seen and felt things that give me evidence that it's true. The problem with me saying that to anyone who doesn't believe, is they'll just think I'm crazy. There's as much solid evidence for me to believe in Christianity as science can get to explain the world. I've seen examples in the real world that play out with the hypothesis that Christianity is true. It's already been discussed here, that everything in the scientific field is limited by our perceptions of the world and our perceptions of the results of scientific testing. Also Christianity explains things science cannot, IMHO.

That's just the delusion. I've seen unicorns on a mountain far far away, but nobody is going to believe that story. How does this sound to you? I've also experienced and seen things while meditating that I can't even properly describe.

Should I tell everyone that "god" has contacted me and that I'm going to be your next savior? Just because you feel or see something that you can't describe you can't say that it is "god" since you don't know.

Things happen in the name of Jesus Christ that wouldn't if you didn't call upon him and His power. I believe that and have seen it, others believe that too. That is what makes it God versus something else. I know anything I say that's happened from calling upon Him, you will still argue it was something else, maybe a self fulfilling prophecy. I'm not going to argue that with you.

When people see things that cannot be explained and miracles, they can either be explained away by science, or it's proof of something else going on that science has not explained (which means a religion may be right). I never really believed this: but atheists do seem to put a lot of faith in science, to the point it seems like a religion, since science has not explained everything, and continues to learn, and has changed the way we perceive things from the past scientific explanations. (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_20)

I don't argue science can't be helpful, but to believe only what you've seen, it cannot give you the whole picture. That's why there's so many theories in science, and why things change when people get better at looking at the evidence. Like what's the smallest thing in the universe? (http://www.livescience.com/23232-smallest-ingredients-universe-physics.html) Who's to say in a few hundred years what science believes now won't seem silly?

[Lauda]

According  to Silas (member of yahoo answers)

Most of the atheists that I have heard or seen think that people that believe in any religion (Christianity for the most part) are idiots, bad people, or crazy. Now I'm sure there are atheists that don't think this way but I haven't seen or heard from one that doesn't. I am a Christian but have no problem with people who are gay,atheist, or from a different religion. From what I've experienced atheists think that religion is a social issue and believe that religion is the cause of war,violence, and such. When most religions are against such things. I just want to know why atheists have to think this way and why cant all people just live to respect each other and why atheists believe that the sooner religion is gone the better.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090327202028AAkUAN3

Okay let's set this straight. Nobody should ever generalize (even though he isn't)  things. He has just encountered bad people (atheists or not). I do not have anything against people who believe in various things, unless you start forcing your nonsense on me or argue with me using false evidence. I'm perfectly okay with it, as long as people behave properly, nor have I tried converting anyone that I know aside from sharing some insight.
Religions are a cause of many bad things,however let's not get started with this discussion as we have multiple examples from history. I'm just going to mention The Inquisition, The Witch Hunt, Thuggee Murders and such. Let's just leave it at that.

Things happen in the name of Jesus Christ that wouldn't if you didn't call upon him and His power. I believe that and have seen it, others believe that too. That is what makes it God versus something else. I know anything I say that's happened from calling upon Him, you will still argue it was something else, maybe a self fulfilling prophecy. I'm not going to argue that with you.
-snip-

Well as someone who used to be christian, I do not agree with this. I'm too tired to continue the science debate, however you probably are partially right. As long as you do not show a stance toward the subject such as BADecker (currently on ignore), you have a fine character.

[-Lux-]

i dont believe in god but i believe in a higher power i believe in Extraterrestrial Dimensional Beings

[usairx]

Well, I don't hate anything or anyone but I certianly dislike the idea of religion. I believe everything must be backed by something

[MakingMoneyHoney]

i dont believe in god but i believe in a higher power i believe in Extraterrestrial Dimensional Beings

If we're going onto that tangent, lol....

Did you know some believe those ET's to be demons and abductions to be demonic attacks? Abductions stop in the name of Jesus Christ

[cryptodevil]

Things happen in the name of Jesus Christ that wouldn't if you didn't call upon him and His power. I believe that and have seen it, others believe that too.

No, no they don't. Trouble is, you aren't actually interested in considering that you may be mistaken. You aren't interested in applying a little critical thinking to your belief because you are conditioned to reject anything which might force you to suspend your special-pleading intellectual dishonesty.

How does it feel to know that you are someone who doesn't want to understand life properly?

Because that is exactly what you are when you refuse to submit your beliefs to objectively reasoned analysis. For example, we know how to induce 'spiritual' sensations into people, 'presence of God', even 'alien abduction', simply by applying some intense magnetic impulses to particular parts of the brain. Neurological responses cause subjective psychological and emotional experiences.

We understand how the brain can easily be fooled and we understand how our senses and our perceptions cannot be relied upon for much of anything when it comes to demonstrable knowledge, without independent verification from other data sources outside of our unreliable perception.

We can easily explain how religions come into existence, how the psychology of the theist mind is constructed and how, as a group, the myths and legend develop and are reinforced through symbolism and ritual.

You *do* know, don't you, that all your special symbols and rituals don't actually do anything, right? I mean, if I genuflect and I scratch my balls halfway through, does it count as the magic needed to induce, well, whatever it is you believe you are inducing by genuflecting?

So, in that we can rationally explain everything as long as intellectual integrity is maintained, there is only self-deception left for you to cling to. Which is what you and your kind do, with much vigour and desperation. Trying to get you to understand that you are mistaken is no different to trying to reason with somebody suffering from amphetamine-induced psychosis. You both *know*, I mean absolutely 100% *know* that you are right about what you are perceiving . . . that anybody who tries to explain otherwise to you is a threat.

Q:What's different about the speed-freak curtain-twitcher who is convinced that he is being watched and you who believes likewise?

A: The tweaker could actually be under surveillance

Your proposition towards the existence of an omnipotent invisible super-being who has a set a rules we're all supposed to follow is less credible, even, than those who believe they have been abducted by aliens. They, at least, invoke things which could be measurably real in our Universe.

[dblink]

Atheists are more fearful people in this world, they hate religion due to the fear of being living independently oppose to their own wishes, they never want to adopt the life which pave the path to live modestly in this world, All living beings are faithful to it's creator except the human kind.

[Buffer Overflow]

Atheists are more fearful people in this world,

It would be my guess the religious folk are the ones living in fear. Remember, every day they worry they might get their God angry over something silly and get their heaven pass revoked. Atheists have no such issues.

All living beings are faithful to it's creator except the human kind.

How do you know other living beings aren't Atheist?

[popcorn1]

because people fight over something thats not there  makes no sense  :-\killing each other over god
or say thats god punishing you
or pray to god ..  why what will he do