Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[Beliathon]

When you get a degree in neurosciences, then you can tell us how the brain works.

Psych major here, I found a place I can be genuinely helpful in this conversation! I know the science on this, and the good news it's easily understood in a short 7 minute video.

[Tathata]

Lets not fool around you all here know the beauty of why. And you know the beauty of why not.

Also hate is a person to person thing not all encompassing. You choose this as well.

[BADecker]

When you get a degree in neurosciences, then you can tell us how the brain works.

Psych major here, I found a place I can be genuinely helpful in this conversation! I know the science on this, and the good news it's easily understood in a short 7 minute video.

Lol! Some of these video things operate in all kinds of rejection. Others don't always operate in this kind of rejection.

One of the near truths in the video is the almost-self relationship that people have with God. And this is pronounced in the Christian. Jesus and Saint Paul both talk about the believer being one with God through the work of salvation that God did. And the fact salvation is open to the unbelievers, brings them right to the edge of being part with God, at least until they die in unbelief.

By not choosing God, one does reject Him. But it is more than that. By not choosing God, one pushes the strength of life from himself/herself.

The fact of the penetration of cause and effect through out the universe (at least according to all the scientific and other knowledge we have) shows us that we don't have any choice. Cause and effect dictates even our thinking. Don't misunderstand. We have freedom of choice, but we don't understand, at all, how we do. If we understand a little, we don't at all know how to say it.

So, the video is flawed and incomplete. Why? Because all the things that are ascribed to the theist by the video, also fit the the atheist. Thus the video shows that atheism not only is a religion, but the god of the atheism religion is mankind, himself.

[jaysabi]

Your getting up or staying in bed is dictated by things like the many neuron firings in your brain which cause you to make the decision the way you do. The neuron firings are determined to some extent by the electrolytes in your system. The electrolytes are determined by what you ate or drank the night before. The things you ate or drank were determined both by availability and by the electrolyte-neuron-induced-firing of the night before. The food composition of the food you ate and the drink you drank were determined by many factors in nature and manufacturing, all of which were determined by many other factors.

When you get a degree in neurosciences, then you can tell us how the brain works. Until then, perhaps lay off the junk science explanations.

What's the matter? Having trouble refuting the things I say with any factual science?

Don't get me wrong. It is totally acceptable that my programming recognizes the programming, while yours doesn't. It's the way we are programmed. However, the amazing thing is that we have a little bit to do with our own programming, even though science doesn't know it, or recognize that it could be this way... in fact, doesn't even really think we do.

No, your garbage description of how neurons work doesn't even meet the minimum threshold of credibility to warrant spending any time correcting. It's plainly obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The only refutation required is to draw attention to your post, and let people associate the uneducated nonsense within with its author.

[BADecker]

Your getting up or staying in bed is dictated by things like the many neuron firings in your brain which cause you to make the decision the way you do. The neuron firings are determined to some extent by the electrolytes in your system. The electrolytes are determined by what you ate or drank the night before. The things you ate or drank were determined both by availability and by the electrolyte-neuron-induced-firing of the night before. The food composition of the food you ate and the drink you drank were determined by many factors in nature and manufacturing, all of which were determined by many other factors.

When you get a degree in neurosciences, then you can tell us how the brain works. Until then, perhaps lay off the junk science explanations.

What's the matter? Having trouble refuting the things I say with any factual science?

Don't get me wrong. It is totally acceptable that my programming recognizes the programming, while yours doesn't. It's the way we are programmed. However, the amazing thing is that we have a little bit to do with our own programming, even though science doesn't know it, or recognize that it could be this way... in fact, doesn't even really think we do.

No, your garbage description of how neurons work doesn't even meet the minimum threshold of credibility to warrant spending any time correcting. It's plainly obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The only refutation required is to draw attention to your post, and let people associate the uneducated nonsense within with its author.

This isn't the place to delve into the papers that explain how neurons work.

The point is that Newton's Third Law doesn't state exactly what the equal and opposite reaction is. But His Third Law implies, accurately, that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite action that caused it (it, the reaction, that is). This being the case, there are no random actions. Everything is preprogrammed, including the way that neurons fire.

Wake up and see that the idea of free will is beyond the explanation of science. Thus, science by its inadequacy for explaining free will, suggests that free will is an illusion. There is no free choice. There is only the illusion of free choice.

What? You don't believe in science? Eeeeaaaagh.

[jaysabi]

Your getting up or staying in bed is dictated by things like the many neuron firings in your brain which cause you to make the decision the way you do. The neuron firings are determined to some extent by the electrolytes in your system. The electrolytes are determined by what you ate or drank the night before. The things you ate or drank were determined both by availability and by the electrolyte-neuron-induced-firing of the night before. The food composition of the food you ate and the drink you drank were determined by many factors in nature and manufacturing, all of which were determined by many other factors.

When you get a degree in neurosciences, then you can tell us how the brain works. Until then, perhaps lay off the junk science explanations.

What's the matter? Having trouble refuting the things I say with any factual science?

Don't get me wrong. It is totally acceptable that my programming recognizes the programming, while yours doesn't. It's the way we are programmed. However, the amazing thing is that we have a little bit to do with our own programming, even though science doesn't know it, or recognize that it could be this way... in fact, doesn't even really think we do.

No, your garbage description of how neurons work doesn't even meet the minimum threshold of credibility to warrant spending any time correcting. It's plainly obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The only refutation required is to draw attention to your post, and let people associate the uneducated nonsense within with its author.

This isn't the place to delve into the papers that explain how neurons work.

The point is that Newton's Third Law doesn't state exactly what the equal and opposite reaction is. But His Third Law implies, accurately, that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite action that caused it (it, the reaction, that is). This being the case, there are no random actions. Everything is preprogrammed, including the way that neurons fire.

Wake up and see that the idea of free will is beyond the explanation of science. Thus, science by its inadequacy for explaining free will, suggests that free will is an illusion. There is no free choice. There is only the illusion of free choice.

What? You don't believe in science? Eeeeaaaagh.

Here's perfect example of you taking something scientific and just making stuff up without having the slightest understanding of what you're talking about.

The point is that Newton's Third Law doesn't state exactly what the equal and opposite reaction is. But His Third Law implies, accurately, that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite action that caused it (it, the reaction, that is). This being the case, there are no random actions. Everything is preprogrammed, including the way that neurons fire.

First, yes Newton's Third Law does state exactly what the reaction is. See if you can keep up here: it is equal and opposite. Newton's Third Law describes the interaction for force pairs, and the specific, exact reaction is stated as equal and opposite.

Second, his law doesn't prove that there are no random actions. Even if you want to argue semantics on this, the point can be conceded without consequence, because doing so certainly doesn't have any application to your conclusion: everything is pre-programmed. Everything certainly is not. If you want to argue it is, you'll need something that actually supports the conclusion. Newton's Third Law isn't it.

Third, Newton's Third Law has nothing to do with neurons firing.

Fourth, you still do not understand how neurons work.

The moral of the story here is please don't try to science without proper adult supervision. You're not mentally equipped for it.

[BADecker]

Your getting up or staying in bed is dictated by things like the many neuron firings in your brain which cause you to make the decision the way you do. The neuron firings are determined to some extent by the electrolytes in your system. The electrolytes are determined by what you ate or drank the night before. The things you ate or drank were determined both by availability and by the electrolyte-neuron-induced-firing of the night before. The food composition of the food you ate and the drink you drank were determined by many factors in nature and manufacturing, all of which were determined by many other factors.

When you get a degree in neurosciences, then you can tell us how the brain works. Until then, perhaps lay off the junk science explanations.

What's the matter? Having trouble refuting the things I say with any factual science?

Don't get me wrong. It is totally acceptable that my programming recognizes the programming, while yours doesn't. It's the way we are programmed. However, the amazing thing is that we have a little bit to do with our own programming, even though science doesn't know it, or recognize that it could be this way... in fact, doesn't even really think we do.

No, your garbage description of how neurons work doesn't even meet the minimum threshold of credibility to warrant spending any time correcting. It's plainly obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The only refutation required is to draw attention to your post, and let people associate the uneducated nonsense within with its author.

This isn't the place to delve into the papers that explain how neurons work.

The point is that Newton's Third Law doesn't state exactly what the equal and opposite reaction is. But His Third Law implies, accurately, that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite action that caused it (it, the reaction, that is). This being the case, there are no random actions. Everything is preprogrammed, including the way that neurons fire.

Wake up and see that the idea of free will is beyond the explanation of science. Thus, science by its inadequacy for explaining free will, suggests that free will is an illusion. There is no free choice. There is only the illusion of free choice.

What? You don't believe in science? Eeeeaaaagh.

Here's perfect example of you taking something scientific and just making stuff up without having the slightest understanding of what you're talking about.

The point is that Newton's Third Law doesn't state exactly what the equal and opposite reaction is. But His Third Law implies, accurately, that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite action that caused it (it, the reaction, that is). This being the case, there are no random actions. Everything is preprogrammed, including the way that neurons fire.

Folks like you are so good at taking peoples' focus off the point. But people are learning.

First, yes Newton's Third Law does state exactly what the reaction is. See if you can keep up here: it is equal and opposite.

Now, look at this in a little more detail. The actions are made up of real activity - brain chemicals, electrons, etc., doing their job. The opposite reaction is therefore, not real. If it were real, it would not be an opposite reaction. The free will equal reaction is an illusion.

Newton's Third Law describes the interaction for force pairs,

Did you get your own words? "Forced pairs." In other words, action and reaction, cause and effect.

and the specific, exact reaction is stated as equal and opposite.

With regard to neurons firing and brain activity in general, there are countless, hundreds of thousands of actions and causes. Each one works with others to produce the outcome - the reactions, the effects - the illusion of free will. Why is it an illusion? Because it feels free, but is actually actions and reactions, causes and effects, producing the appearance of free will.

Second, his law doesn't prove that there are no random actions. Even if you want to argue semantics on this, the point can be conceded without consequence, because doing so certainly doesn't have any application to your conclusion: everything is pre-programmed. Everything certainly is not. If you want to argue it is, you'll need something that actually supports the conclusion. Newton's Third Law isn't it.

All you have said here is "No, no no." Newton's Third Law is about action and reaction, cause and effect. These are universal. There is no evidence of anything other than action and reaction, cause and effect. Random suggests effect without cause. But there is no evidence of such.

The Great First Cause is the One Who got the whole cause and effect thing going. Nobody has substantive evidence to the opposite... the opposite that suggests that there is anything random happening. All is cause and effect.

Third, Newton's Third Law has nothing to do with neurons firing.

Every action has to do with Newton's Third Law, because there is no action outside of the fact that there was something that caused it. This means that even the firing of neurons was caused by something or many somethings.

Fourth, you still do not understand how neurons work.

And neither do you. If you did, you would already know about how God interacts with cause and effect without being affected by either cause or effect.

The moral of the story here is please don't try to science without proper adult supervision. You're not mentally equipped for it.

The moral of the story is that I am not equipped to satisfactorily deal with jokers, like you, who think that they are using science, but then have no real answer or ability to make the answer plain to people.

[the joint]

Lol, what the heck, dude.  One paragraph...

The opposite reaction is therefore, not real.

... vs. other paragraph

Newton's Third Law is about action and reaction, cause and effect.

You're not even trying anymore.  Go lay down or something.

[Beliathon]

Lol, what the heck, dude.  One paragraph...

The opposite reaction is therefore, not real.

... vs. other paragraph

Newton's Third Law is about action and reaction, cause and effect.

You're not even trying anymore.  Go lay down or something.

Superstition ties a mind up into logical knots, makes it about as functional as a doorknob as an engine of rationality.

[Lauda]

Superstition ties a mind up into logical knots, makes it about as functional as a doorknob as an engine of rationality.

I've told everyone several times to either ignore his posts or him completely. He is like a boring version of Dank (who knows where he is). I've been following this thread ever since my last reply and I rarely read something of interest/value.
I've recently stumbled upon a good quote:

Code:

Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced. - Soren Kierkegaard

In this case, the problem can't even be solved.

[BADecker]

Lol, what the heck, dude.  One paragraph...

The opposite reaction is therefore, not real.

... vs. other paragraph

Newton's Third Law is about action and reaction, cause and effect.

You're not even trying anymore.  Go lay down or something.

electrons, electrolytes, chemicals, all working in the brain = reality = action

free will = illusion = reaction

For every ACTION there is an equal and opposite REACTION.

Reaction opposite action.
Illusion opposite reality.
Free will opposite brain activity.

[Tusk]

Consciousness is not a phenomena that can be measured or quantified scientifically so you can't ascribe scientific laws to validate or refute free will, you comparing apples with something that isn't tangible.  

The Big Question is: - Is consciousness like energy conserved and transmitted/recycled?  Since there is no definitive answer it remains the prerogative of every individual to form their own opinion. But recognising the universe is alive suggests to me the chances are high. However I must concede this is merely speculation on my part.

Atoms that make up the molecules that make up the amino acids that forms life, all of which are derived from star dust, that is continuously being  reconstituted and expressed/recycled within the living universe. Since we are integral to it and consciousness is an epiphenomena to life it is plausible that it is pervasive throughout the universe. (speculation on my part)

Dogma remains our greatest enemy.

[Tathata]

IMHO fear is our greatest enemy.

[Tusk]

Without fear we would probably be extinct

[Beliathon]

In this case, the problem can't even be solved.

Of course, because death is the problem than can (will) be solved.

[BADecker]

Consciousness is not a phenomena that can be measured or quantified scientifically so you can't ascribe scientific laws to validate or refute free will, you comparing apples with something that isn't tangible.

I agree with this. Standard science suggests that conscious will be able to be quantified and measured in every way some day. Until then, it doesn't exist. We are close to being science heretics if we talk consciousness existence as more than brain and nerve activity.

The Big Question is: - Is consciousness like energy conserved and transmitted/recycled?  Since there is no definitive answer it remains the prerogative of every individual to form their own opinion. But recognising the universe is alive suggests to me the chances are high. However I must concede this is merely speculation on my part.

Everything that we see operates by cause and effect, action and reaction, as far as we understand it. So far, we see nothing else for a fact.

Atoms that make up the molecules that make up the amino acids that forms life, all of which are derived from star dust, that is continuously being  reconstituted and expressed/recycled within the living universe. Since we are integral to it and consciousness is an epiphenomena to life it is plausible that it is pervasive throughout the universe. (speculation on my part)

Although we spectrographically see the base chemicals of life in space, we really don't know if such are being remade by stars. Lots of theory. Lots of ideas. But no real knowledge... yet.

Perhaps it is through the cause and effect that produces our thinking that the Divine makes known to us all kinds of things about the cause and effect of operations in the universe.

Dogma remains our greatest enemy.

Dogma is our friend, because it gives us a foundation on which to build. Dogma is our enemy when the substance of dogma is incorrect.

[BADecker]

In this case, the problem can't even be solved.

Of course, because death is the problem than can (will) be solved.

One of the things about the death solution that we don't know, and that we should fear is this.

Science bases "life" on the idea that life is a complexity that is physical and energy related. Yet, because we don't know anything about actual, personal life (consciousness?), life might be something that is entirely unrelated to energy and the physical.

What if we overcome death, and the preceding is true? Imagine the untold pain of losing one's limbs, even one's head, without being able to die.

Death might be a gift of the Divine that takes people away from the pain of life when the thing that we call life support (our living bodies) becomes too weak to give us reasonable comfort.

Imagine what it would be like to have your atoms and molecules blown apart in a nuclear action, and yet you are alive in each of them to feel the pain of recognizable dissociation.

[Tusk]

Dogma is our friend, because it gives us a foundation on which to build. Dogma is our enemy when the substance of dogma is incorrect.

That is one way of approaching it, I prefer in the absence of self verified knowledge to keep an open mind. If you keep looking under the same rocks you keep finding the same bugs.

[BADecker]

Dogma is our friend, because it gives us a foundation on which to build. Dogma is our enemy when the substance of dogma is incorrect.

That is one way of approaching it, I prefer in the absence of self verified knowledge to keep an open mind. If you keep looking under the same rocks you keep finding the same bugs.

You have more or less asserted several times, now, that you are against dogma. At what point does the strength of your assertion start to bring it into a dogmatic position itself? To see what I mean, take a look at the synonyms and antonyms for the word "dogma" as found in the thesaurus, here http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/dogma.

[Beliathon]

IMHO fear is our greatest enemy.

Ignorance -> Fear -> Hatred -> Violence / War

Ignorance is our greatest enemy. Knowledge our most vital ally.