Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[BADecker]

Einstein on the relationship between Philosophy and Science:

How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment….

Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought,” “a priori givens,” etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long commonplace concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken.

Nice.   

[the joint]

Also relevant:

The problems surrounding quantum theory are not mathematical. They stem instead from the unacceptable terminology that appears in presentations of the theory. Physical theories ought to be stated in precise terminology, free of ambiguity and vagueness. John Bell provides a list of insufficiently clear concepts in his essay “Against ‘measurement’”:

Here are some words which, however legitimate and necessary in application, have no place in a formulation with any pretension to physical precision: system, apparatus, environment, microscopic, macroscopic, reversible, irreversible, observable, information, measurement.

Textbook expositions of quantum theory make free use of these forbidden terms. But how, in the end, are we to determine whether something is a “system”, or is large enough to count as “macroscopic,” or whether an interaction constitutes a “measurement?” Bell’s fastidiousness about language is the outward expression of his concern about concepts. Sharp physical theories cannot be built out of vague notions.

Take-home message: The language we use to describe the physical Universe is ultimately subject to semantic scrutiny.  One who relies solely upon the 'objectivness' of scientific theories without regard for the theoretical nature of the language used to express those theories ultimately butchers his understanding of them, and overlooks the inherent, fundamental relationship between objective content and the abstract models we form thereof.

[BADecker]

Also relevant:

The problems surrounding quantum theory are not mathematical. They stem instead from the unacceptable terminology that appears in presentations of the theory. Physical theories ought to be stated in precise terminology, free of ambiguity and vagueness. John Bell provides a list of insufficiently clear concepts in his essay “Against ‘measurement’”:

Here are some words which, however legitimate and necessary in application, have no place in a formulation with any pretension to physical precision: system, apparatus, environment, microscopic, macroscopic, reversible, irreversible, observable, information, measurement.

Textbook expositions of quantum theory make free use of these forbidden terms. But how, in the end, are we to determine whether something is a “system”, or is large enough to count as “macroscopic,” or whether an interaction constitutes a “measurement?” Bell’s fastidiousness about language is the outward expression of his concern about concepts. Sharp physical theories cannot be built out of vague notions.

Take-home message: The language we use to describe the physical Universe is ultimately subject to semantic scrutiny.  One who relies solely upon the 'objectivness' of scientific theories without regard for the theoretical nature of the language used to express those theories ultimately butchers his understanding of them, and overlooks the inherent, fundamental relationship between objective content and the abstract models we form thereof.

It is so difficult to formulate in one's own mind the exact thing one wants to say. Then, on top of it, one needs to use the correct wording and grammar to get it across concisely. Even Solomon in the Old Testament said wording to the effect of, "The more the words, the less the meaning."

[the joint]

Also relevant:

The problems surrounding quantum theory are not mathematical. They stem instead from the unacceptable terminology that appears in presentations of the theory. Physical theories ought to be stated in precise terminology, free of ambiguity and vagueness. John Bell provides a list of insufficiently clear concepts in his essay “Against ‘measurement’”:

Here are some words which, however legitimate and necessary in application, have no place in a formulation with any pretension to physical precision: system, apparatus, environment, microscopic, macroscopic, reversible, irreversible, observable, information, measurement.

Textbook expositions of quantum theory make free use of these forbidden terms. But how, in the end, are we to determine whether something is a “system”, or is large enough to count as “macroscopic,” or whether an interaction constitutes a “measurement?” Bell’s fastidiousness about language is the outward expression of his concern about concepts. Sharp physical theories cannot be built out of vague notions.

Take-home message: The language we use to describe the physical Universe is ultimately subject to semantic scrutiny.  One who relies solely upon the 'objectivness' of scientific theories without regard for the theoretical nature of the language used to express those theories ultimately butchers his understanding of them, and overlooks the inherent, fundamental relationship between objective content and the abstract models we form thereof.

It is so difficult to formulate in one's own mind the exact thing one wants to say. Then, on top of it, one needs to use the correct wording and grammar to get it across concisely. Even Solomon in the Old Testament said wording to the effect of, "The more the words, the less the meaning."

The problem here is more specific.  The problem is mostly in ascribing inherently mathematical concepts (e.g. "system") to physical phenomena.  The problem is, again, one of induction.

Modeling this process to demonstrate the problem:

1) We have a system we want to scientifically explore.

2) We have not formed a theory or model about this system because we haven't explored it yet.

3) But, we 'a priori' assume that it is an objective system.  This in itself is purporting a theoretical understanding of it before we have explored it.  That is, we have applied an 'a priori' theory of systemhood to objective content before we have explored it to know what it is.

4) At a certain level, this essentially means one is saying they already know what the objective content is before they know what the objective content is.  Hence, this is an inductive fallacy.

There are ways to get around this to stay consistent, but it's tricky.

[ummina]

i dont think so.
for me and with my experience, atheis not hate religion.
any religion... cause what?
religion have organize and law with God or with human.
and atheis dont want to have connection and to obidient with the oe=rganize or law from the religion it.

[BADecker]

i dont think so.
for me and with my experience, atheis not hate religion.
any religion... cause what?
religion have organize and law with God or with human.
and atheis dont want to have connection and to obidient with the oe=rganize or law from the religion it.

Atheists are organized in a religious way to maintain the idea that there is no God. Atheism is a religion. It is a religion where mankind is god, because it is mankind who, against all good evidence, suggests that there is no god.

[needmoney]

i dont think so.
for me and with my experience, atheis not hate religion.
any religion... cause what?
religion have organize and law with God or with human.
and atheis dont want to have connection and to obidient with the oe=rganize or law from the religion it.

Atheists are organized in a religious way to maintain the idea that there is no God. Atheism is a religion. It is a religion where mankind is god, because it is mankind who, against all good evidence, suggests that there is no god.

Atheism isn't a religion.
If it is, it's associatons collect millions and millions of dollar and doesn't pay tax

[Beliathon]

Sam Harris - Religions Are Failed Sciences

[the joint]

Sam Harris - Religions Are Failed Sciences

Sam Harris makes a living off failed premises.  I've watched virtually every debate of his available on the Internet, and it's hardly impressive.  He is capable of shooting down idiotic religious claims (e.g. that we should trust in a holy book because a holy book says so, etc.), but this is nothing any other ordinary person can't do.  I've seen him challenged on a number of other points, however, and it's clear he doesn't have a thorough understanding of empirical philosophy in terms of origin, derivation, and limitations.  I wouldn't call his understanding of the limitations of scientific reasoning 'bad' by any means -- it's surely above average.  But he walks into the same pitfalls that Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, and (to a lesser extent) Christopher Hitchens do.  Those pitfalls commonly include appeals to low-hanging fruit which don't have a scientific basis to begin with, and invalid arguments about a lack of physical evidence being an open-and-shut case against Intelligent Design in general (the former necessitate deference to philosophical debate, and the latter necessitate deference to a waste basket).

I'd be happy to debate with Harris on these points.  Nobody should argue that there are many horrible ways in which religion manifests itself in the world, but everyone "should" contest the reasons he suggests to not believe in Intelligent Design.  To that extent, he makes a living from intellectual [ignorance and] dishonesty, and it does a disservice to rational debate in the most ironic of ways.

Harris should stick to just vilifying religious extremists, and that's about it.

[freeyourmind]

i dont think so.
for me and with my experience, atheis not hate religion.
any religion... cause what?
religion have organize and law with God or with human.
and atheis dont want to have connection and to obidient with the oe=rganize or law from the religion it.

Atheists are organized in a religious way to maintain the idea that there is no God. Atheism is a religion. It is a religion where mankind is god, because it is mankind who, against all good evidence, suggests that there is no god.

That is an interesting point of view.  Do you think Atheists get together in a building once a week to discuss their ideas about religion?  Perhaps there are some that are active participants in voicing what they think, but I'd say the majority doesn't spend much time even thinking about religion and do not participate.

What is the "good evidence" that you're referring to?

[Beliathon]

Atheists are organized in a religious way to maintain the idea that there is no God. Atheism is a religion. It is a religion where mankind is god, because it is mankind who, against all good evidence, suggests that there is no god.

Atheists are disorganized in a non-religious way to maintain the idea that there are no unicorns. Atheism is a religion. It is a non-religion where mankind is god, because it is mankind who, with the support of all evidence, concludes that there are no unicorns.

Mankind is god

[the joint]

Atheists are organized in a religious way to maintain the idea that there is no God. Atheism is a religion. It is a religion where mankind is god, because it is mankind who, against all good evidence, suggests that there is no god.

Atheists are disorganized in a non-religious way to maintain the idea that there are no unicorns. Atheism is a religion. It is a non-religion where mankind is god, because it is mankind who, with the support of all evidence, concludes that there are no unicorns.

Mankind is god

All these posts and you still have absolutely zero response to the rebuttal of your invalid unicorn analogy. 

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Atheists are organized in a religious way to maintain the idea that there is no God. Atheism is a religion. It is a religion where mankind is god, because it is mankind who, against all good evidence, suggests that there is no god.

Atheists are disorganized in a non-religious way to maintain the idea that there are no unicorns. Atheism is a religion. It is a non-religion where mankind is god, because it is mankind who, with the support of all evidence, concludes that there are no unicorns.

Mankind is god

You claim yourself as God, because of science. You are blind to see. You are following a religion.

[Topbanker]

Atheists don't see themselfs as gods. 100% nonsense.

and atheists don' hate religion they just don't see the point of it.

Because religion is a form of control. To control people. To keep them in line.
Also to fear people. "don't do this or you will burn in hell".

It funny because god loves us all but he will let you burn in hell if you don't believe..
And altho god is allknowing he created us all so how come he created rapers and murderers??

god is a weirdo...

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Atheists don't see themselfs as gods. 100% nonsense.

and atheists don' hate religion they just don't see the point of it.

Just Beliathon, I know.

Because religion is a form of control. To control people. To keep them in line.
Also to fear people. "don't do this or you will burn in hell".

It funny because god loves us all but he will let you burn in hell if you don't believe..
And altho god is allknowing he created us all so how come he created rapers and murderers??

god is a weirdo...

As I said, there are plenty of verses in the bible that say "Fear Not." God is not about fearing things, just having a reverence for the Glory that created us.

He created free will. If He didn't, you'd be mad you didn't have it.

Bu free will, is why people fall away and don't believe, and become rapers and murderers.

[Beliathon]

You claim yourself as God, because of science. You are blind to see. You are following a religion.

You understand nothing. Not me, the individual, but humanity in the collective sense is God.

[BADecker]

You claim yourself as God, because of science. You are blind to see. You are following a religion.

You understand nothing. Not me, the individual, but humanity in the collective sense is God.

Jesus arose from the dead to live forever. Nobody else can. Even the people that doctors seem to bring back to life now and again, die again. Humanity is not God.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

You claim yourself as God, because of science. You are blind to see. You are following a religion.

You understand nothing. Not me, the individual, but humanity in the collective sense is God.

You're a human, yes?

[Beliathon]

 Religion is an ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance.

Jesus arose from the dead to live forever. Nobody else can.

Yet. The end of death may well come within your lifetime. Bringing the dead back to life may soon be a medical reality, with claims people may be able to be resuscitated up to 24 hours after their death.

Critical care physician Sam Parnia makes the claim in his book Erasing Death, saying resuscitation research is on the cusp of a major breakthrough within the next 20 years.

"With today's medicine, we can bring people back to life up to one, maybe two hours, sometimes even longer, after their heart stopped beating and they have thus died by circulatory failure. In the future, we will likely get better at reversing death," he told Germany's Spiegel magazine.

"It is possible that in 20 years, we may be able to restore people to life 12 hours or maybe even 24 hours after they have died. You could call that resurrection, if you will. But I still call it resuscitation science."

Currently the average resuscitation rates for cardiac arrest patients in the US is 18 percent, while in the U.K. it is 16 percent. But at Parnia's research base in New York that rate is between 33 percent and 38 percent.

"Most, but not all of our patients, get discharged with no neurological damage whatsoever," he said.

[BADecker]

Religion is an ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance.

One of the things that scientific enlightenment is finding out more than ever is, there is a whole lot more to the complexity of nature than anyone ever thought. And the more we find out, the greater we find the complexity to be.

Jesus arose from the dead to live forever. Nobody else can.

Yet. The end of death may well come within your lifetime. Bringing the dead back to life may soon be a medical reality, with claims people may be able to be resuscitated up to 24 hours after their death.

Critical care physician Sam Parnia makes the claim in his book Erasing Death, saying resuscitation research is on the cusp of a major breakthrough within the next 20 years.

"With today's medicine, we can bring people back to life up to one, maybe two hours, sometimes even longer, after their heart stopped beating and they have thus died by circulatory failure. In the future, we will likely get better at reversing death," he told Germany's Spiegel magazine.

"It is possible that in 20 years, we may be able to restore people to life 12 hours or maybe even 24 hours after they have died. You could call that resurrection, if you will. But I still call it resuscitation science."

However, the brink of war, the impending collapse of the money system (almost happened in 2008), the common law vs. civil law battle, and loads of other things suggest that research will collapse shortly, right along with the whole economy.

Back in the 1950s, the promise was that we would have fully operational bases on the moon within 20 years. Where are they?

Back in the 1920s, heart disease was going to be cured before the decade was out. Not even close.

Believe it when you see it, if even then.

Currently the average resuscitation rates for cardiac arrest patients in the US is 18 percent, while in the U.K. it is 16 percent. But at Parnia's research base in New York that rate is between 33 percent and 38 percent.

"Most, but not all of our patients, get discharged with no neurological damage whatsoever," he said.

The point is, if we actually have someone who lives until age 200 without any signs of aging, then we might begin to say that perhaps there is a slight chance we have conquered death. If somebody makes it to age 1,000, we might say we are on to something. However, as soon as someone dies, we have to admit that we haven't quite conquered death, even if it is at 10,000 years.