Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[Beliathon]

If sex is the ultimate nirvana, then why is tantric sex (axiomatically) more blissful?

Tantric sex is [a subset of] sex, ergo this question is fallacious.

Your fetishization of meditation is going to seem quaint in a few short decades when anyone will be able to use technology to reach a meditative state achievable today only by a handful of Zen Masters.

[the joint]

If sex is the ultimate nirvana, then why is tantric sex (axiomatically) more blissful?

Tantric sex is sex, ergo this question is fallacious.

Incorrect.  Tantric sex is sex performed with ritualistic, meditative focus.  If sex (in general) is the ultimate nirvana, then there should be no accompanying method by which it could be made 'more ultimate.'

Please see edits in previous post.

Edit:  If technology can facilitate such meditative states, I'm all for it.

[Beliathon]

Incorrect.

Tantric sex is not sex, that's your argument?

"Crossfit is not cardio!"

"Drag racing is not racing!"


All kinds [subsets] of sex are part of the greater set Sex.

Stop pulling a pigeon, it's obnoxious and if you continue you will forfeit the privilege of conversing with me.

[the joint]

Incorrect.

Tantric sex is not sex, that's your argument?

"Crossfit is not cardio!"

"Drag racing is not racing!"


All kinds [subsets] of sex are part of the greater set Sex.

Stop pulling a pigeon man, it's obnoxious and if you continue you will forfeit the privilege of conversing with me.

Sex =\= sex + meditation

If sex + meditation > sex, then sex is not the 'ultimate,' is it?  That is, something can be added to it to make it greater.

So, we then look at just meditation (specifically, a meditative state) to see if this in itself is greater than sex.  Here, I re-refer you to my edits two posts ago.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Ultimate nirvana depends on people. Different people will have different ultimates. You should not try to make yours the ultimate for all. After all, sex can not always be ultimate nirvana as long as rape is alive.

[Beliathon]

Religious sex is not better than regular sex, get over it.

"tantric sex, is the modern, western variation of tantra often associated with new religious movements. This includes both New Age and modern Western interpretations of traditional Hindu and Buddhist tantra. Some of its proponents refer to ancient and traditional texts and principles"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neotantra

Sexual rites

Although equated with Tantra in the West, sexual rites were historically practiced by a minority of sects. For practicing groups, maithuna progressed into psychological symbolism.[54] According to White, the sexual rites of Vamamarga may have emerged from early Hindu Tantra as a means of catalyzing biochemical transformations in the body to facilitate heightened states of awareness.[54] These constitute an offering to Tantric deities. Later developments in the rite emphasize the primacy of bliss and divine union, which replace the bodily connotations of earlier forms.[54] This is clearly seen in Japanese tantra in Shingonshu of Tachikawa-ryu.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantra

After all, sex can not always be ultimate nirvana as long as rape is alive.

Words well-rooted in compassion; worth meditating on.

[the joint]

Ultimate nirvana depends on people. Different people will have different ultimates. You should not try to make yours the ultimate for all. After all, sex can not always be ultimate nirvana as long as rape is alive.

A meditative state, as previously explained, occurs at the instant one's perception of "self" disappears entirely.

It is a universal phenomenon that arises similarly for everyone who attains it.  There is no variance.  Accordingly, it's not about personal preference, opinion, or subjectivity.  If you achieve a meditative state, it will be the same as any other.

[the joint]

Religious sex is not better than regular sex, get over it.

"tantric sex, is the modern, western variation of tantra often associated with new religious movements. This includes both New Age and modern Western interpretations of traditional Hindu and Buddhist tantra. Some of its proponents refer to ancient and traditional texts and principles"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neotantra

Sexual rites

Although equated with Tantra in the West, sexual rites were historically practiced by a minority of sects. For practicing groups, maithuna progressed into psychological symbolism.[54] According to White, the sexual rites of Vamamarga may have emerged from early Hindu Tantra as a means of catalyzing biochemical transformations in the body to facilitate heightened states of awareness.[54] These constitute an offering to Tantric deities. Later developments in the rite emphasize the primacy of bliss and divine union, which replace the bodily connotations of earlier forms.[54] This is clearly seen in Japanese tantra in Shingonshu of Tachikawa-ryu.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantra

After all, sex can not always be ultimate nirvana as long as rape is alive.

Words well-rooted in compassion; worth meditating on.

I'm not religious.

And yes, you first reference Western tantra which, like Western yoga, really misses the point of what tantra and yoga are really meant to achieve.  They're bastardized versions.

Your second reference just reinforces the point in my last reply to you. 

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Demons trying to get people to sin and worship false gods.

Can your compile us a list of all these false Gods please? I want to be sure to avoid them.
Please answer in your own words and directly as possible. Thanks.

Anyone or anything that is not the true God of the bible /Jesus should not be worshiped or placed in higher respect than God/Jesus.

How have you come to that conclusion? Give me an example; let's say the Islamic God Allah. How have you concluded this one is false?

Because I believe Jesus Christ is the savior.

Exodus 20:3 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." An example would be people worshiping other things/people over God, feeling that they can protect you better than God. Like caring about having enough money, versus having faith that God will provide.

No, I'm not interested in considering I'm wrong.

I'm always interested in considering that I may be wrong. It is reassuring when one's continued questioning and study of new data and reasoning continues to lead one back to supporting the proposition that there is no evidence, no need, for a 'god' in this Universe and that those who believe such are provably employing intellectually dishonest reasoning to support their false argument.

If, however, things were to change and there was a whole new set of data I could incorporate into my understanding, such that I needed to modify my position substantially, I would always be open to doing so.

You are not. You have decided that your own subjective wishing and active confirmation bias is enough and all the myriad of contradictions and conflicts can just be swept under the carpet . . . because god. No thanks, I prefer not to have to make my subconscious mind continually wrestle with cognitive dissonance, it isn't healthy.

I already considered if I was wrong or not. You just omitted that before responding to that quote. I asked if He existed and found I believed He did. As I've grown over the years, I've seen example after example of proof. You would think I was stupid to stop believing in something once I had proof that it was true. I don't have cognitive dissonance; actually as I go, I find things make more and more sense.

Atheists aren't much better, in not wanting to consider God exists, they found their answer a long time ago too.

I think you'll find that atheists are actually considerably more qualified in the balance of consideration for your claims for god than you. Your assertions are simply, "He does because . . .[insert logical fallacy here]". We're not afraid of the answers to the questions we ask. You are, that's why you have no intellectual integrity and your world is constructed from 'woo'. Careful, it's not a particularly reliable building material, it is prone to crumbling when analysed by objective reasoning.

I'm not afraid. I've been answering your questions, and explaining away things you call inconsistencies.

How does it feel to you to know that you are someone who doesn't want to understand life properly? To ignore what's really going on?

]

See, that's the thing, the moment I stopped looking for 'The Supernatural' I stopped seeing it, everywhere.

You, unfortunately, will dishonestly take that to mean I closed my eyes to the 'wonder of woo' when, the fact of the matter is, I simply stopped projecting my faulty assumptions and preconceived perceptions onto ordinary situations. When I began to practice intellectual honesty in order to more reliable understand Life, The Universe and Everything, I found that there were understandable answers for everything and none of it required invoking 'woo' and, in fact, 'woo' was clearly found to be one of the root causes of cognitive dissonance and confusion as, much like the Bible is chock-full of contradictions and conflicts, what with it being not one story but a collection of stories selected for inclusion by a group of men many centuries after the myths concerned were written, the introduction of 'woo' to try and explain anything simply becomes an infantile conflicting game of, "Because I say so!", rather than a route towards actual knowledge of The Universe.

3 out of 4 Americans believe in the paranormal in some way? (2005 Study)

You'll probably love this one that shows belief in God declining (not surprising to me, as I've pointed out), but it clearly shows belief in paranormal experiences is increasing and it's more recent than the other link (2013 study)

If science explains everything so perfectly, why is there an increasing belief in paranormal things?

The bible is a wonderful guide on how to act.

My goodness, I take it you haven't actually read the damn thing, then? Do you even know the origins of that absurd publication?

Just so I know where you stand, do I turn the other cheek or is it 'an eye for an eye'?

Yes, I've read it all, except Psalms, which I'm currently reading. The OT rules were washed away when Jesus came, and we are now supposed to forgive others to receive forgiveness for our sins.

[GregH37]

In my opinion the answer of this question is " Atheist hate religion because they don't believe in the existence of God" May be this is the reason of thier hatred and May be they are unhappy by some rules that describe by religion or may be there is some other reason.

[Salman Anjum]

In my opinion the answer of this question is " Atheist hate religion because they don't believe in the existence of God" May be this is the reason of thier hatred and May be they are unhappy by some rules that describe by religion or may be there is some other reason.

Somewhere agreed with you @Greg but i think the reason is something else.....
This is also reason of their hatred but i think they don't have mind because religion is path or way to follow......
But they dont believe in God and don't believe in religion.....

[Buffer Overflow]

Demons trying to get people to sin and worship false gods.

Can your compile us a list of all these false Gods please? I want to be sure to avoid them.
Please answer in your own words and directly as possible. Thanks.

Anyone or anything that is not the true God of the bible /Jesus should not be worshiped or placed in higher respect than God/Jesus.

How have you come to that conclusion? Give me an example; let's say the Islamic God Allah. How have you concluded this one is false?

Because I believe Jesus Christ is the savior.

Yeah see you didn't really answer the question, you just gave us your opinion. Just because xyz is comforting, doesn't imply xyz is true.
To be fair I knew you would never answer it because I asked an impossible question. Nobody can possible know if that particular God is false or not.
Good reason why I steer clear of the whole mess.

[cryptodevil]

With all due respect -- and I say that because I know from your posts you do value intellectual honesty -- you have no basis to say there is no "need" for God or an Intelligent Designer. 

Simply because we can speculate on numerous possible theories and hypotheses which could be used to explain processes we have yet to more accurately observe and measure, none of which would require an omnipotent, omniscient super-being.

So, on the basis that explanations exist which do not require an omnipotent, omniscient super-being, they are by default *more likely* to be correct as they do not invoke infinitely more complex elements, namely, god(s).

To have a comprehensive theory of what reality is all about, the theory we have about reality requires that it can account for itself. 

Well, let's be honest, we don't need a 'comprehensive' theory of 'reality' to be able to accurately describe basic elements of what can be objectively tested, observed and measured, as long as we have the technological tools which can help to minimise on the erroneous frailties of our own perceptions.

We can, and have, achieved a great deal in our short time of applying the scientific method, without needing to say we 'know everything'.

Introducing gods into our hypotheses would be no different to introducing Harry Potter as an explanation for the origin of The Universe. Your philosophical gymnastics notwithstanding, I think we can safely proceed along the lines of ruling out our Universe having been created by a fictional character from a book, if you know what I mean.

[cryptodevil]

If science explains everything so perfectly, why is there an increasing belief in paranormal things?

It takes time for people to lose their 'woo'.

Firstly, please don't ever cite how many people believe something to be true as a measure of it being true. You cannot prove anything by general consensus. You could say 100 billion people believe in something for which there is no objective measure and their assertion would be defeated by a single person who simply pointed out that fact.

Just because you employ positive reinforcement, confirmation bias and cherry-picking among a group of like-minded 'believers' does not make for evidence. The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. Nothing 'paranormal' has EVER been demonstrated that could survive critical analysis and you want to simply say, "Well, shucks, there's a lot of us who believe in it so we'll ignore the absolute lack of any data to support our claims" because that's sensible, right?

Secondly, people will often move from theism to agnosticism because they understand that religion is a man-made phenomenon, but they will still cite their own experiences of, "things wot u cud nt expln!!!!!1!1", leading them into maintaining a belief in 'the supernatural' allowing them to still hold on to the notion of 'dualism', something a lot of people believe they need to do because of their conditioning from religion.

Trouble is, if we can explain away every single claim towards the 'paranormal', which we can, and those who cite having 'knowledge of' the 'paranormal' are completely unable to ever demonstrate objective proof of such, then I think we're safe to say that our non-woo explanations are, as for 'god', infinitely more likely to be correct.

[GregH37]

Demons trying to get people to sin and worship false gods.

Can your compile us a list of all these false Gods please? I want to be sure to avoid them.
Please answer in your own words and directly as possible. Thanks.

Anyone or anything that is not the true God of the bible /Jesus should not be worshiped or placed in higher respect than God/Jesus.

How have you come to that conclusion? Give me an example; let's say the Islamic God Allah. How have you concluded this one is false?

Because I believe Jesus Christ is the savior.

Yeah see you didn't really answer the question, you just gave us your opinion. Just because xyz is comforting, doesn't imply xyz is true.
To be fair I knew you would never answer it because I asked an impossible question. Nobody can possible know if that particular God is false or not.
Good reason why I steer clear of the whole mess.

There are frequent debates not only between atheists and theists, but also among atheists on the subject of religion. Why? Because there is no unanimity among atheists on religion. Different atheists believe different things about the value, nature, and future of religion and religious beliefs. It’s impossible to ascribe one overarching position about any aspect of religion to all atheists or even most atheists.

[cryptodevil]

Why? Because there is no unanimity among atheists on religion. Different atheists believe different things about the value, nature, and future of religion and religious beliefs. It’s impossible to ascribe one overarching position about any aspect of religion to all atheists or even most atheists.

The fu. . .?

I'm taking it you posted this solely to get in your required minimum posting number for that online ring vendor you are promoting in your avatar, because the content is ridiculous.

Atheism is the absence of a belief in theism. There are no 'flavours' of absence of theist belief. It is either present as theism or it is absent as atheism.

Agnosticism is just someone who doesn't want to commit to either position.

 

[GregH37]

Why? Because there is no unanimity among atheists on religion. Different atheists believe different things about the value, nature, and future of religion and religious beliefs. It’s impossible to ascribe one overarching position about any aspect of religion to all atheists or even most atheists.

The fu. . .?

I'm taking it you posted this solely to get in your required minimum posting number for that online ring vendor you are promoting in your avatar, because the content is ridiculous.

Atheism is the absence of a belief in theism. There are no 'flavours' of absence of theist belief. It is either present as theism or it is absent as atheism.

Agnosticism is just someone who doesn't want to commit to either position.

 

Yes dear i agreed with you that antheism is don't believe in God Right ?? I mention that the thinking and belief of every person is different Is it wrong ??

[cryptodevil]

Ohhh, I see, you're answering the topic title but because you quoted part of a conversation relating to something more specific it looked like your contribution was in answer to the quoted dicussion you included.

Fair enough.

Retracted.

[GregH37]

Ohhh, I see, you're answering the topic title but because you quoted part of a conversation relating to something more specific it looked like your contribution was in answer to the quoted dicussion you included.

Fair enough.

Retracted.

Yes dear i give the answer of title of the thread that why atheist hate religion.

[cbase]

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.

It's simple ! Anything that disrupts peace and dignity of life cannot be a part of religion. This only implies that people have used religion to inflict misery on others instead of using it to bring them together. Over decades we have been spectators to the misery and communal fights caused in its name...Does anything else need to be said ?