Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[Beliathon]

I will admit, I think compassion, patience, and understanding is always the noblest course of action on both sides. It's easy to become jaded and frustrated at each other, but Carl Sagan said it best:



On the other hand, when I'm under attack by theists for valiantly attempting to liberate their minds from the shackles of superstition, I often find myself feeling this:

Intelligent design does not require emotion or benevolence (...)

I'm sorry, are you disputing the God claims of the Holy Bible? Because the Bible claims that God loves everyone deeply, and wants to save our immortal souls. That's basic shit.

But what scientific evidence suggests does not say anything about God one way or the other.

A fair statement would be: There is equal evidence to support the existence of the God of the Holy Bible, as there is to support the existence of Allah, Yahweh, Zues, Gaia, Thor, Obi-Wan Kenobi's blue ghost, Jenova, Jibbers Crabst, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Given that knowledge, I suppose my question for Christians becomes: Why did you choose Christianity over all the other (more interesting) options out there? For me, nothing beats the evidence supporting Norse Mythology.

[Tusk]

Quote from: Tusk on July 20, 2015, 08:13:07 PM
Intelligent design does not require emotion or benevolence to validate or refute it, and our understanding of the universe is so inadequate to be able to make predictions as to its origins or outcome, they are all best guess as were the beliefs of our theist forefathers.

Quote from: Beliathon on July 21, 2015, 02:31:20 AM
I'm sorry, are you disputing the God claims of the Holy Bible? Because the Bible claims that God loves everyone deeply, and wants to save our immortal souls. That's basic shit.

Correct, from an evidence perspective the universe is neutral. That said neutrality does not preclude the possibility of intelligent design.

A crude analogy is Bitcoin , it operates without fear, favor, emotion or bias and without any awareness of its "supernatural" creator Satoshi. However users who use bitcoin all use it with emotion. Bitcoin is a purely abstract construct that has manifested into reality in a way that neither its creator nor the individuals who uses it, can control.

We have to make clear distinctions between the two aspects of reality and not fall into the trap of using one aspect to validate or refute the other. They are completely separate realms that combined form reality, one cannot exist without the other.

The external operating protocol of our reality is completely devoid of emotion or bias, we engage it through the interface of our five senses and process it with an emotional processor. Our self awareness affords us the ability to develop an operating system of our choosing with the bias of our environment.

 "Culture is your operating system" - Terence Mckenna

[Beliathon]

Correct

So are you:

1. A student of science / atheist / agnostic? We can rule out that possibility because you believe in intelligent design despite all the evidence against it
2. A follower of some other religion than Christianity?
3. Attempting to create your own cult here?

[Tusk]

Correct

So are you:

1. A student of science / atheist / agnostic? We can rule out that possibility because you believe in intelligent design despite all the evidence against it
2. A follower of some other religion than Christianity?
3. Attempting to create your own cult here?

Perhaps you have not been following what I have stated earlier:-

The Universe is Alive!

The universe is alive, we are in it, and it in us. We are all unique living expressions of it separated only by time and space. It is perfect and timeless yet everything that has and ever will happen, always happen in the present.

The dichotomy of the human condition is while emotions give us purpose, truth is completely devoid of emotion. So, when confronted with ambiguity e.g. a half glass, most will cling dogmatically to seeing it either as half full or half empty based on their emotional predisposition.

There is no basis to assume a "creator" that expresses any emotion towards us or any form of favouritism to any part within the universe. Using emotion to verify or refute the existence of intelligent design would be false. In the same way mathematics is emotionless, so using concepts of love and hate to argue its validity makes no sense.

There is no need to be saved; merely by recognising that the universe is alive and majestically recycles everything enriches your experience of it. The Idea we have to live in servitude is a man made construct and only serves to enslave others. Collective ideology is a false premise. Experiencing the universe from your own
perspective allows you to fully appreciate the mystery of life without being limited by others short comings.


"God" has never said anything to me so why should I believe he would have spoken to anybody else. Even more ludicrous is the notion that "God" would single out select individuals to tell the rest of us how to live our lives? Therein leis the deception, excuse the pun. If "God" wanted to make us to live according to a specific doctrine it would simply be so. The concepts of good and evil are human constructs of moral behaviour that have been wrapped into theistic fairytales to make society conform and serve a ruling elite. Substituting the word universe for "God" removes all the deception and manipulation. We do not need religion for morality or to share our appreciation for the universe.

Everything we experience is reality, this is true for everybody. How we make sense of our experiences and
try to communicate it is subjective. That's why the sciences have been developed to try and distil an essence of what is common about or experience of it.

No two people can occupy the same time and space so it stands to reason that nobody will have matching
perspectives, trying to do so only diminishes your reality and makes you someone else's slave.

Science: - is the set of tools we have devised to try and define that which is common about our experiences with the absence of emotion.

Art: - is the creative means by which we skilfully manipulate the five scenes of others to evoke shared emotions.


Magic: - is the ability to induce desired emotional responses in others through art and in so doing manipulate their perception and influence their actions in a predetermined manner. With the skilful manipulation of the five senses and the combination of ritual the results are more profound and compelling. However it requires the subject to first believe or willingly submit to the suggestion, once this is achieved the ritual aspect reinforces the hypnosis. Appealing to the subject’s fears is the easiest way to induce their submission.


All organised religion is based on magic.


Light Magic - appeals to empathy and the interests of all.
Dark Magic - appeals to the selfish interests of a few at the expense of others.

Terence McKenna - "Science is saying give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest" (the big Bang).
What’s flawed with the big Bang? For starters explain how did the Universe expand to its enormous size faster than the speed of Light and what preceded it?

Newton spent more time studying alchemy than he did gravity or light.


Science is just as full of dogma as religion especially when it comes to cosmology. In many cases science has become is it own religion.

A brilliant mind shared this wisdom, ``Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated non simultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences. `` - Buckminster Fuller

Given the above definition that the universe is founded on consciousness, the kicker is that consciousness is a phenomenon that our sciences cannot measure or quantify.

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.

Dogma remains humanity's greatest enemy

So no to all 3 of your points. Each individual should granted the space to appreciate the meaning of life from their individual perspective while granting others the right to do the same. There are no definitive answers. As we grow our perspectives will change both individually and collectively.

[Beliathon]

Correct

So are you:

1. A student of science / atheist / agnostic? We can rule out that possibility because you believe in intelligent design despite all the evidence against it
2. A follower of some other religion than Christianity?
3. Attempting to create your own cult here?

The universe is alive, we are in it, and it in us. We are all unique living expressions of it separated only by time and space. It is perfect and timeless yet (...)

I'm gonna have to go ahead and file this one under 3. Attempting to create your own cult. At least you're creative. Fabricating your own dogma is one intellectual step above following the dogma of some guy who died 2,000 years ago. Tragically, you're still trapped in superstition.

Your creativity has spared you my ignore list, young padawan.

[Tusk]

Knock yourself out, if by that you infer I'm socially deviant with novel beliefs and practices, I take it as a compliment.

[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.

Let's see if we can clear this up concisely.

For every ACTION, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Do you know what an ACTION is? Actions are verbs, not nouns. Here's a list to help you, since now I'm in a listing mood.

Things BADecker things are actions, but aren't:

• Electrons
• Electrolytes
• Chemicals
• Reality
• Illusion
• Free will

Therefore, because none of the things you are talking about are ACTIONS, Newton's Third Law cannot be invoked to prove they have an opposite.

Here I thought your problem was of science illiteracy, and it turns out, it's just regular illiteracy.

Solomon says in the Bible O.T., that if you laugh at someone's trouble, the same thing will happen to you. I wouldn't have laughed, anyway. But Solomon gives me all the more reason not to laugh.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/action?s=t:

action
[ak-shuh n]


noun
1. the process or state of acting or of being active:
The machine is not in action now.
2. something done or performed; act; deed.
3. an act that one consciously wills and that may be characterized by physical or mental activity:
a crisis that demands action instead of debate; hoping for constructive action by the landlord.
4. actions, habitual or usual acts; conduct:
He is responsible for his actions.
5. energetic activity:
a man of action.
6. an exertion of power or force:
the action of wind upon a ship's sails.
7. effect or influence:
the action of morphine.
8. Physiology. a change in organs, tissues, or cells leading to performance of a function, as in muscular contraction.
9. way or manner of moving:
the action of a machine or of a horse.
10. the mechanism by which something is operated, as that of a gun or a piano.
11. a military encounter or engagement; battle, skirmish, or the like.
12. actual engagement in fighting an enemy; military or naval combat:
He saw action in Vietnam.
13. Literature. the main subject or story, as distinguished from an incidental episode.
14. Theater.

    an event or series of events that form part of a dramatic plot:
    the action of a scene.
    one of the three unities.
    Compare unity (def .

15. the gestures or deportment of an actor or speaker.
16. Fine Arts. the appearance of animation, movement, or emotion given to figures by their attitude, position, or expression.
17. Law.

    a proceeding instituted by one party against another.
    the right of bringing it.

18. Slang.

    interesting or exciting activity, often of an illicit nature:
    He gave us some tips on where the action was.
    gambling or the excitement of gambling:
    The casino usually offers plenty of action.
    money bet in gambling, especially illegally.

19. Ecclesiastical.

    a religious ceremony, especially a Eucharistic service.
    the canon of the Mass.
    those parts of a service of worship in which the congregation participates.

adjective
20. characterized by brisk or dynamic action:
an action car; an action melodrama.
Idioms
21. in action,

    performing or taking part in a characteristic act:
    The school baseball team is in action tonight.
    working; functioning:
    His rescuing the child was bravery in action.

22. out of action, removed from action, as by sudden disability:
The star halfback is out of action with a bad knee.
23. piece of the action, Informal. a share of the proceeds or profits:
Cut me in for a piece of the action.
24. take action,

    to start doing something:
    As soon as we get his decision, we'll take action.
    to start a legal procedure.

I don't see "action" listed as a verb anywhere in the definition.

Since the word "action" is a noun, and it is being compared to "reaction," another noun, Newtons Third Law is talking about "things," which are not verbs.

Holy crap, this is absurd.

Dude, the word "verb" is defined as a noun, too:

verb
vərb/
nounGRAMMAR
1.
a word used to describe an action, state, or occurrence, and forming the main part of the predicate of a sentence, such as hear, become, happen.

Listen more.  Talk less.  The word action is a noun, but actions are verbs.  Just like the word verb is a noun, but verbs are actions.

You just don't get it, do you?

If the activity of the action were a "thing" and the reaction were a "thing" as well, then Newton's Third Law would not fit, because "things" are not opposite in the sense of being things.

Therefore, the action activity must be a verb to fit the noun thing, thereby showing that the "opposite" part of the Third Law applies.

[BADecker]

The point is simple -- if an Intelligent Designer exists, there is no physical evidence that could theoretical exist that would prove it.

all the evidence strongly suggests (...)

Irrelevant.  

That right there is why science gave us computers, space rockets, and artificial limbs. While religion has given us church shootings, gay bashing, and flagellation.

Free your mind and think. "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and ..." it is called modern science.

[the joint]

I will admit, I think compassion, patience, and understanding is always the noblest course of action on both sides. It's easy to become jaded and frustrated at each other, but Carl Sagan said it best:



On the other hand, when I'm under attack by theists for valiantly attempting to liberate their minds from the shackles of superstition, I often find myself feeling this:

Intelligent design does not require emotion or benevolence (...)

I'm sorry, are you disputing the God claims of the Holy Bible? Because the Bible claims that God loves everyone deeply, and wants to save our immortal souls. That's basic shit.

But what scientific evidence suggests does not say anything about God one way or the other.

A fair statement would be: There is equal evidence to support the existence of the God of the Holy Bible, as there is to support the existence of Allah, Yahweh, Zues, Gaia, Thor, Obi-Wan Kenobi's blue ghost, Jenova, Jibbers Crabst, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Given that knowledge, I suppose my question for Christians becomes: Why did you choose Christianity over all the other (more interesting) options out there? For me, nothing beats the evidence supporting Norse Mythology.

I'm thinking you're just trolling now.  Would you please read what you're reaponding to?  Thanks.

1) I had already disproved your false analogies in previous posts.  A Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other thing whose topological constraints constitute any portion of their identity, is a false analogy to an intelligent designer (i.e. if a Creator creates topological constraints but exists prior to them, it follows its identity is not constituted by topological constraints).  All entities whose identities consist of topological constraints could be empirically verified or falsified should they exist; an intelligent designer cannot be empirically verified or falsified should it exist.  But it is not exempt from logical verification or falsification, which is precisely why it's an appropriate topic for rational discourse.

2) I'm not a Christian, nor do I follow any religion.  I challenge you to write a response to me that does not contain a strawman.  I can't remember any.  For someone who prides himself on reason and intellectual capacity, you disappoint at both.

3) You still fail to demonstrate even a basic understanding of empirical exploration.  A fair (and true) statement is that the evidence does not suggest anything about a god or no god, in the same way the evidence does not suggest anything about mathematics or no mathematics.

4) Please think for yourself.  Your botched understanding of what top scientists actually say (e.g. Hawking, deGrasse Tyson, etc.) makes your posts look silly.  When you parrot things willy-nilly, it shows.  

[BADecker]

I will admit, I think compassion, patience, and understanding is always the noblest course of action on both sides. It's easy to become jaded and frustrated at each other, but Carl Sagan said it best:



On the other hand, when I'm under attack by theists for valiantly attempting to liberate their minds from the shackles of superstition, I often find myself feeling this:

Intelligent design does not require emotion or benevolence (...)

I'm sorry, are you disputing the God claims of the Holy Bible? Because the Bible claims that God loves everyone deeply, and wants to save our immortal souls. That's basic shit.

But what scientific evidence suggests does not say anything about God one way or the other.

A fair statement would be: There is equal evidence to support the existence of the God of the Holy Bible, as there is to support the existence of Allah, Yahweh, Zues, Gaia, Thor, Obi-Wan Kenobi's blue ghost, Jenova, Jibbers Crabst, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Given that knowledge, I suppose my question for Christians becomes: Why did you choose Christianity over all the other (more interesting) options out there? For me, nothing beats the evidence supporting Norse Mythology.

I'm thinking you're just trolling now.  Would you please read what you're reaponding to?  Thanks.

1) I had already disproved your false analogies in previous posts.  A Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other thing whose topological constraints constitute any portion of their identity, is a false analogy to an intelligent designer (i.e. if a Creator creates topological constraints but exists prior to them, it follows its identity is not constituted by topological constraints).  All entities whose identities consist of topological constraints could be empirically verified or falsified should they exist; an intelligent designer cannot be empirically verified or falsified should it exist.  But it is not exempt from logical verification or falsification, which is precisely why it's an appropriate topic for rational discourse.

2) I'm not a Christian, nor do I follow any religion.  I challenge you to write a response to me that does not contain a strawman.  I can't remember any.  For someone who prides himself on reason and intellectual capacity, you disappoint at both.

3) You still fail to demonstrate even a basic understanding of empirical exploration.  A fair (and true) statement is that the evidence does not suggest anything about a god or no god, in the same way the evidence does not suggest anything about mathematics or no mathematics.

4) Please think for yourself.  Your botched understanding of what top scientists actually say (e.g. Hawking, deGrasse Tyson, etc.) makes your posts look silly.  When you parrot things willy-nilly, it shows.  

The thing that we all ignore about Beliathon is that he absolutely DOES use science. There is a branch of science where anything and everything goes. This includes the tearing down of any form of the scientific method if necessary, to prove a point. That science branch is Political Science. Most of us use at least a little of it now and again.

See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1103707.msg11935521#msg11935521 to see what I mean about Beliathon.

[Beliathon]

Can anyone attempt a translatation of BADecker's insane gibberish to English for me? Thanks in advance.

[BADecker]

Can anyone attempt a translatation of BADecker's insane gibberish to English for me? Thanks in advance.

Why, thank you, Baliathon. One of the nicest things you have said about me, yet.

 

[zenitzz]

I do not think people who believe in religion are all bad and I have no problem with most religious people. So long as it doesn't negatively affect me or my friends/family.

[jaysabi]

I don't see "action" listed as a verb anywhere in the definition.

Since the word "action" is a noun, and it is being compared to "reaction," another noun, Newtons Third Law is talking about "things," which are not verbs.

The WORD action is a noun. Things that ARE actions, are verbs. Are you really this simple?

Actions: Running, breathing, sitting, talking, explaining to BADecker first-grade level grammar rules

Nouns: Electrons, Electrolytes, neurons, anything else you said...

When you look back at your posts, do you even realize that you've demonstrated ignorance of things they teach to 6 year-olds in order to prove your interpretation of Newton's Third Law? Does that not strike you as utterly hilarious?

[BADecker]

I don't see "action" listed as a verb anywhere in the definition.

Since the word "action" is a noun, and it is being compared to "reaction," another noun, Newtons Third Law is talking about "things," which are not verbs.

The WORD action is a noun. Things that ARE actions, are verbs. Are you really this simple?

Actions: Running, breathing, sitting, talking, explaining to BADecker first-grade level grammar rules

Nouns: Electrons, Electrolytes, neurons, anything else you said...

When you look back at your posts, do you even realize that you've demonstrated ignorance of things they teach to 6 year-olds in order to prove your interpretation of Newton's Third Law? Does that not strike you as utterly hilarious?

Okay. Since you are so good at editing out the rest of what I had to say, why don't you explain how brain activity creates free will? Remember, the brain activity action has to produce an equal and opposite reaction.

[the joint]

I don't see "action" listed as a verb anywhere in the definition.

Since the word "action" is a noun, and it is being compared to "reaction," another noun, Newtons Third Law is talking about "things," which are not verbs.

The WORD action is a noun. Things that ARE actions, are verbs. Are you really this simple?

Actions: Running, breathing, sitting, talking, explaining to BADecker first-grade level grammar rules

Nouns: Electrons, Electrolytes, neurons, anything else you said...

When you look back at your posts, do you even realize that you've demonstrated ignorance of things they teach to 6 year-olds in order to prove your interpretation of Newton's Third Law? Does that not strike you as utterly hilarious?

Okay. Since you are so good at editing out the rest of what I had to say, why don't you explain how brain activity creates free will? Remember, the brain activity action has to produce an equal and opposite reaction.

You might want to consider that you lack the capacity to engage in a free-will debate if you don't even grasp parts of speech.

[BADecker]

I don't see "action" listed as a verb anywhere in the definition.

Since the word "action" is a noun, and it is being compared to "reaction," another noun, Newtons Third Law is talking about "things," which are not verbs.

The WORD action is a noun. Things that ARE actions, are verbs. Are you really this simple?

Actions: Running, breathing, sitting, talking, explaining to BADecker first-grade level grammar rules

Nouns: Electrons, Electrolytes, neurons, anything else you said...

When you look back at your posts, do you even realize that you've demonstrated ignorance of things they teach to 6 year-olds in order to prove your interpretation of Newton's Third Law? Does that not strike you as utterly hilarious?

Okay. Since you are so good at editing out the rest of what I had to say, why don't you explain how brain activity creates free will? Remember, the brain activity action has to produce an equal and opposite reaction.

You might want to consider that you lack the capacity to engage in a free-will debate if you don't even grasp parts of speech.

Another political science representative? Come on, jointy. I thought at least you had the dignity to remain in the pure sciences.

[the joint]

I don't see "action" listed as a verb anywhere in the definition.

Since the word "action" is a noun, and it is being compared to "reaction," another noun, Newtons Third Law is talking about "things," which are not verbs.

The WORD action is a noun. Things that ARE actions, are verbs. Are you really this simple?

Actions: Running, breathing, sitting, talking, explaining to BADecker first-grade level grammar rules

Nouns: Electrons, Electrolytes, neurons, anything else you said...

When you look back at your posts, do you even realize that you've demonstrated ignorance of things they teach to 6 year-olds in order to prove your interpretation of Newton's Third Law? Does that not strike you as utterly hilarious?

Okay. Since you are so good at editing out the rest of what I had to say, why don't you explain how brain activity creates free will? Remember, the brain activity action has to produce an equal and opposite reaction.

You might want to consider that you lack the capacity to engage in a free-will debate if you don't even grasp parts of speech.

Another political science representative? Come on, jointy. I thought at least you had the dignity to remain in the pure sciences.

I'ts just that it's pretty important to understand the language you're using to express your ideas, don't you think?

[BADecker]

I don't see "action" listed as a verb anywhere in the definition.

Since the word "action" is a noun, and it is being compared to "reaction," another noun, Newtons Third Law is talking about "things," which are not verbs.

The WORD action is a noun. Things that ARE actions, are verbs. Are you really this simple?

Actions: Running, breathing, sitting, talking, explaining to BADecker first-grade level grammar rules

Nouns: Electrons, Electrolytes, neurons, anything else you said...

When you look back at your posts, do you even realize that you've demonstrated ignorance of things they teach to 6 year-olds in order to prove your interpretation of Newton's Third Law? Does that not strike you as utterly hilarious?

Okay. Since you are so good at editing out the rest of what I had to say, why don't you explain how brain activity creates free will? Remember, the brain activity action has to produce an equal and opposite reaction.

You might want to consider that you lack the capacity to engage in a free-will debate if you don't even grasp parts of speech.

Another political science representative? Come on, jointy. I thought at least you had the dignity to remain in the pure sciences.

I'ts just that it's pretty important to understand the language you're using to express your ideas, don't you think?

Okay, okay. We can let it go.    

After all, everyone likes to think that they are in control at least a little.

[smith coins]

I dont know why do they dont belive and say that they are right