Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[popcorn1]

MMH....SMART NICE PERSON KNOWS THE BIBLE LIKE THE BACK OF HIS HER HAND
 BUT HE SHE WILL DRIVE HIMSELF HERSELF CRAZY TO MUCH RELIGION  

Fixed that for you.

But I'm not going to be driving myself crazy. I'm chilled as a cucumber.

When God is missing, sex is important.


Thank You.

BITNOW....SEE YOUR THE ONE I MOSTLY DON.T UNDERSTAND ARE YOU A NUTJOB
WHAT DO YOU MEAN ...OR ARE YOU TO CLEVER FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND...
BECAUSE YOU BAFFLE ME

[1715218702]

1715218702

[1715218702]

1715218702

[1715218702]

1715218702

[1715218702]

1715218702

[1aguar]

WE ARE NOW IN THE 21ST CENTURY AND WE STILL DO THIS.

Bro, we are in the 21st century, we do not just speak in all-caps ALL of the time, and we behave rationally.

To be rational means that you can think clearly and are capable of intelligently evaluating new ideas when presented.

What does it say about your rational abilities when you ignore literally ALL of the evidence presented?

Yes, I did present 52 points of evidence for your evaluation; where is your rational response?
www.near-death.com/evidence.html

You don't even realize your stories are contradicted by facts because you never investigated the evidence in the first place.

[Beliathon]

Did anyone say because old people smell funny?

Because old people churchstink is deffo gross.

[popcorn1]

WE ARE NOW IN THE 21ST CENTURY AND WE STILL DO THIS.

Bro, we are in the 21st century, we do not just speak in all-caps ALL of the time, and we behave rationally.

To be rational means that you can think clearly and are capable of intelligently evaluating new ideas when presented.

What does it say about your rational abilities when you ignore literally ALL of the evidence presented?

Yes, I did present 52 points of evidence for your evaluation; where is your rational response?
www.near-death.com/evidence.html

You don't even realize your stories are contradicted by facts because you never investigated the evidence in the first place.

I have told you about the 52 points ...as i told you before its your brains way of making you feel comfortable before you die..like when you have a bad accident you don.t feel pain till 10 to 15 mins after
what more do you want me to say..
even the test in your 52 points the pilots said in the test they felt comfortable ..
So what is so hard to understand..
here is a test for you to do..
look around the room your in.. now close your eyes and imagine your swinging off the lights with a clown suit on in the same room your in now..
you can see your self doing this..ITS CALLED AN IMAGINATION ALL BRAINS CAN DO THIS...
another way to prove how your brain works..
if someone takes L.S.D they see things that are not there and will see things they have never seen in there lives before..well how do they see it if they never been or seen these things before..
you see your brain knows what a kettle looks like
your brain knows what a person looks like
your brain knows what a window looks like
so what it does is mix all these things up now what will happen is..
i could be dreaming i hit someone on the head with a kettle then i fell out of the window..
now if i am dying with my eyes closed i could imagine all sorts of things seeing angels ..floating down the street..seeing your dead mum or dad..what ever your brain thinks to make you comfortable before you die..
but as i have stated even if there is an afterlife why would there still be a god would this not just what happens when we die..
NOW HERE IS MY THINKING ON YOUR 52 POINTS ..SO PLEASE DON.T ASK ME TO REPEAT.

plus how many get drugs pumped into them whiles they are dying or in hospital ..
morphine

[SerenaL]

I am an atheist and I do not hate religion or religious people. I am very much against people using religion as a tool to manipulate people though.

[popcorn1]

I am an atheist and I do not hate religion or religious people. I am very much against people using religion as a tool to manipulate people though.

In what way..EXPLAIN YOURSELF PLEASE..
I have never seen anyone turn religion into a screw driver

[onewiseguy]

I am an atheist and I do not hate religion or religious people. I am very much against people using religion as a tool to manipulate people though.

religion is a tool, to manipulate people into things.

that is the answer.

[1aguar]

Yes, I did present 52 points of evidence for your evaluation; where is your rational response?
www.near-death.com/evidence.html
You don't even realize your stories are contradicted by facts because you never investigated the evidence in the first place.

I have told you about the 52 points ...as i told you before its your brains way of making you feel comfortable before you die..like when you have a bad accident you don.t feel pain till 10 to 15 mins after
what more do you want me to say..

I want you to stop making up stories that equate an untested and hypothetical explanation with a theory based on empirical data.

Fact is that there is hard data supporting the idea that brain chemistry cannot explain this phenomena, and you did not read it, so now I have to quote it for you; for example, "Several people who have been totally blind since birth have reported highly visual NDEs. This is medically unexplainable." There are eight other lines of evidence supporting the idea that brain chemistry cannot explain this phenomena:
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a32

Like I said, your explanation is totally hypothetical and has not been proven scientifically; moreover, "Even if NDE elements can be reduced to only a series of brain reactions, this does not negate the idea that NDEs are more than a brain thing":
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a34

Many skeptical arguments against the survival theory are actually arguments from pseudo-skeptics who often think they have no burden of proof. Such arguments are often based on scientism with assumptions that survival is impossible even though survival has not been ruled out. Faulty conclusions are often made such as, "Because NDEs have a brain chemical connection then survival is impossible." Pseudo-skeptical arguments are sometimes made that do not consider the entire body of circumstantial evidence supporting the possibility of survival or do not consider the possibility of new paradigms. Such pseudo-skeptical claims are often made without any scientific evidence.

even the test in your 52 points the pilots said in the test they felt comfortable ..
So what is so hard to understand..

Where is the scientific proof that relates feeling comfortable and the brain producing a last wonderful Grand Finale vision (or "illusion") at the time of death? Moreover, how can the elements of veridical perception in NDE be explained under this paradigm? Are you not ignoring the fact that there is no medical explanation for these NDEs? Please review points 32, 34, 35 in detail.

ITS CALLED AN IMAGINATION ALL BRAINS CAN DO THIS...

Once again you are caught equating an untested and hypothetical explanation with a theory based on empirical data. Here is the data which contradicts your assertion:
In a study in PLOS ONE, they found that "not only were the NDEs not similar to the memories of imagined events, but the phenomenological characteristics inherent to the memories of real events (e.g. memories of sensorial details) are even more numerous in the memories of NDE than in the memories of real events."
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a52

OK, so this is more than sufficient to demolish your claim that the NDE can be explained by brain chemistry alone; it is obvious that you did not read too much of the evidence or did not think about it clearly.

what ever your brain thinks to make you comfortable before you die..

This assertion is totally untested and you provided no empirical data to back it, I have completely refuted it; so far there is no evidence to support your conclusion, but to support the survival hypothesis we have the fact that there is no medical explanation for these NDEs.

but as i have stated even if there is an afterlife why would there still be a god would this not just what happens when we die..

I have posted my proof of God, I have refuted your disagreement on the first (inductive/scientific) point, so what is wrong with the rest of my proof which only uses deduction once the survival hypothesis is accepted? Please quote my proof and point out the logical error.

NOW HERE IS MY THINKING ON YOUR 52 POINTS ..SO PLEASE DON.T ASK ME TO REPEAT.

Don't bother repeating yourself because the data proves you wrong; you cannot even explain why the brain bothers to make such "illusions" because you are proven incorrect (by the data) in your assumption that NDE is an imagined event.

plus how many get drugs pumped into them whiles they are dying or in hospital ..
morphine

Here you have posted yet another untested and hypothetical explanation with little to no explanatory power. This is not how science is done, my friend.

AT LEAST WITH AN ATHEIST WE ASK FOR PROOF AND THEN THE PROBLEM IS SOLVED ..

Oh really? Maybe a rational atheist can solve a problem by using rational thinking, but you have not.

A pseudo-skeptic like yourself will ask for proof and try to discredit the empirical evidence for the afterlife by making up stories about why that evidence might be wrong without really investigating the evidence or by backing up his/her stories with facts, or in other words IGNORING the proof; then, s/he will go on believing whatever s/he wants to believe, thinking that the problem is solved.

[BADecker]

I am an atheist and I do not hate religion or religious people. I am very much against people using religion as a tool to manipulate people though.

In what way..EXPLAIN YOURSELF PLEASE..
I have never seen anyone turn religion into a screw driver

Yes, but, many have used screwdrivers to turn their bar time into a religion.

[cryptodevil]

I'm going to regret this, I know, because this thread has long become the stomping ground of the delusional, the clinically insane and the downright dangerous (I recall catching a comment a while back from some psycho stating that he believed atheists should die. WTF?)

But, here goes, this is directed at Bl4kjaguar, a guy who bases his belief on the validity of "The Phoenix Journals" by way of stating how an old lady wrote a shit-ton of books during a short period, so, you know, totallymustbelegit, while he absolutely ignores the fact that the psychological disorder, Hypergraphia, is far more likely behind these writings and, asides from that, they are just rambling bullshit.

Fact is that there is hard data . . . .http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence

This entire site, the very crux of your belief, no, your insistence that SCIENCE has proven that our mind is capable of survival after brain death, is grossly flawed due to the fact that it is absolutely chock full of argument fallacies.

Why, for example do they put such stock in citing such irrelevance as,

"The importance of this discovery is revealed by the fact that this book was published by Elsevier, the world's leading provider of science and health information."

Elsevier has has been exposed a number of times for having published fake journals. But, in any event, it is an, 'Appeal to authority' fallacy. The publisher is irrelevant if the paper still fails critical analysis.

Other citations, such as articles from plosone.org, are also not immune from criticism:

PLOS ONE takes the hard work out of publishing. There's no stress waiting to find out if your article meets subjective acceptance criteria. As long as your work reaches a high technical and ethical standard, PLOS ONE will publish it - and make it freely available to a global audience.

Publication does not equal peer-review-approval. In fact it doesn't equal peer-reviewed anything, because it doesn't have to be peer-reviewed, hence the fact that plosone.org contains a great many 'research' papers that are simply appallingly bad science.

Let me give you an example of how easy it is to shred those absurd pieces of 'evidence' you like to insist are valid data. See http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a20 Mellen-Thomas Benedict, a guy who came up with an idea for improving the design of a fucking glass-cutter and claims to have assisted in huge scientific medical breakthoughs:

"It turns out that I was exactly right. I helped decode a genetic disease and the information was very accurate. Everybody thanked me and I went away. Then about three months later, I started getting letters and calls saying, 'My God, you hit it right on the head! This is astounding. There is no way you could have had this information in advance.' I did a fair number of projects like that and a fair number of think tanks, all of which you have to sign nondisclosures and promise to never talk about. I worked in a lot of think tanks with some very impressive world class scientists over the next ten years until I retired from all that in 1995."

Except, of course, outside of his book, they ALWAYS have a book to sell, there is no valid reference to him doing ANY of this. To save on thread space, here is a full debunking of that charlatan: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=23994

Bl4kjaguar, either you are genuinely wanting to establish the truth of the matter, in which case you will want to seriously consider the actual fact that the websites you base your 'knowledge' on are shockingly poor references for anything objectively scientific, or you are so far gone into full blown psychotic delusion that you will refuse to consider you may be wrong and that you have accepted the word of people for whom there is profit in convincing people like you to believe their stories.

[1aguar]

Most of that post is just making up stories about why that evidence might be wrong without really investigating the evidence or by backing up stories with facts. Even if all that you said is correct, I think you have not done an adequate job at refuting any of the points on the near-death site, nor have you given cause to consider the possibility of hypergraphia in the case of the Phoenix Journals. You base your beliefs upon assumptions which are unstated, then give inadequate stories as explanations without considering all of the circumstantial evidence and the possibility of new paradigms.

[Beliathon]

So I see 2 threads of why islam hates people or why people hate Islam.

You're reading an English language forum, what did you expect?  Everyone knows Christianity is the official religion of English.

[Triple]

So I see 2 threads of why islam hates people or why people hate Islam.

You're reading an English language forum, what did you expect?  Everyone knows Christianity is the official religion of English.

That's so true. Most of the Christians are more liberal today so I don't know why anyone would post the things about Islam... but I guess you never know.

[cryptodevil]

Most of that post is just making up stories about why that evidence might be wrong without really investigating the evidence or by backing up stories with facts. Even if all that you said is correct, I think you have not done an adequate job at refuting any of the points on the near-death site, nor have you given cause to consider the possibility of hypergraphia in the case of the Phoenix Journals. You base your beliefs upon assumptions which are unstated, then give inadequate stories as explanations without considering all of the circumstantial evidence and the possibility of new paradigms.

I am not countering with 'evidence' I am countering with an explanation for why what you consider to be 'evidence' does not qualify as such.

Big difference.

Let me give you an example:

You show me a room full of a hundred people sitting at desks frantically tapping away on computer keyboards, writing. You say that they all claim to be 'channelling' information from time-travelling space beings. I say to you that there is no reason to believe they are not simply experiencing the neurological disorder, 'hypergraphia' as it is a recognised disorder and a condition which affects a small percentage of the population, often for a relatively short period of time. You respond by saying, "Ok, I'll accept that the majority are probably suffering from that condition but I will insist that at least one of them must be genuinely channelling information from time-travelling space beings.

Trouble is, you have no basis for asserting such a thing when there is long recorded history of recognising and understanding the medical condition, 'hypergraphia' in humans, many of whom claim to be writing some sort of 'secret knowledge' and there is absolutely no recorded history of it being found, instead, to be a case of a human being channelling information from time-travelling space beings.


Another example would be the wild claims made by Mellen-Thomas Benedict, if you read the actual full thread I linked to which breaks down in more detail where the many, many problems with his claims are, a similar position to the above is reached. We have a long and recorded history of people claiming they have experienced something 'mystical', but no objective evidence of such a thing actually occurring. He lays claim to having been lauded by medical science for miraculously being able to describe some genetic 'fix' that needed to be made and how they were all congratulating him months later when it turned out he had helped them achieve some incredible scientific leaps of progress. Conveniently, however, he pulls a 'Josh Garza' and makes sure to throw in how he had to signed various Non-disclosure agreements which ensures that neither he nor any of the scientists he said he worked with are allowed to discuss anything about his 'miraculous insight'.

The only 'evidence' you have for his claims are his claims, which is known as the fallacy of 'circular reasoning'. Therefore it is not acceptable as evidence.

Every single 'scientific' point that NDE website cites as 'proof' is grossly flawed. We've been here before and unless you are willing to strike out each one I objectively debunk, I am not going to waste my time doing so only for you to go back and cite them again because you're incapable of rational thought and unwilling to recognise that you are probably caught up in the 'sunk cost' fallacy, which is the fact you have expended so much time and energy in making this a core element of your identity and belief that you would rather maintain intellectual dishonesty in the face of critical analysis than accept the actual truth.

[gampher]

I'll explain it again, more clearly, sometime. But, as Newton's laws are understandable, even so you can figure this thing out for yourself if you want. It isn't hard.

dood this is the question ,NEWTONS laws could have been made by anyone who did research ..but your fucking religion starts with only ONE
and that ONE is suspicious and LIAR,

If the One that you are talking about is God, He is absolutely NOT a liar. The fact that you say He is, shows that YOU are the liar.

So, let me ask a question. What causes brought you into the effect of being a liar. After all, it wasn't the plan of God that you be a liar.

he is a liar because he lies about something he dosent has and claims that only he has it.
newton didn't did that ,anyone could have done that..

[1aguar]

Most of that post is just making up stories about why that evidence might be wrong without really investigating the evidence or by backing up stories with facts. Even if all that you said is correct, I think you have not done an adequate job at refuting any of the points on the near-death site, nor have you given cause to consider the possibility of hypergraphia in the case of the Phoenix Journals. You base your beliefs upon assumptions which are unstated, then give inadequate stories as explanations without considering all of the circumstantial evidence and the possibility of new paradigms.

I am not countering with 'evidence' I am countering with an explanation for why what you consider to be 'evidence' does not qualify as such.

Big difference.

If you do not want to counter each and every piece of evidence that I have provided you with then you have not provided reason to reject every single point of evidence that I propose. Therefore, I have evidence to support my view and you do not, you are merely proposing stories without proposing a reason to discredit the evidence. For example, you did not point out what is wrong with the Mereon Matrix, you merely suggested that it could be wrong... no science can stand up to that kind of criticism, that is like saying "it could be wrong for reasons we don't yet know about".

Let me give you an example:

I did not read it; I would rather you bother yourself with giving reason to dismiss each point of evidence that I referenced; after you get through these 52, we can move on to other evidence that I am familiar with.

Trouble is, you have no basis for asserting such a thing when there is long recorded history of recognising and understanding the medical condition, 'hypergraphia' in humans, many of whom claim to be writing some sort of 'secret knowledge' and there is absolutely no recorded history of it being found, instead, to be a case of a human being channelling information from time-travelling space beings.

What would qualify as "recorded history"?
Who said that the Journals were channeled? I believe that I stated that they were not...
Who said that the messengers Hatonn, Sananda, and others are time-travelers; where are you getting this??

Another example would be the wild claims made by Mellen-Thomas Benedict,

The only 'evidence' you have for his claims are his claims, which is known as the fallacy of 'circular reasoning'. Therefore it is not acceptable as evidence.

Fair enough; I still contend that people having NDE have brought back valid scientific knowledge, as explained in that link.

Every single 'scientific' point that NDE website cites as 'proof' is grossly flawed.

Oh? Do enlighten us!

We've been here before and unless you are willing to strike out each one I objectively debunk, I am not going to waste my time doing so only for you to go back and cite them again because you're incapable of rational thought and unwilling to recognise that you are probably caught up in the 'sunk cost' fallacy, which is the fact you have expended so much time and energy in making this a core element of your identity and belief that you would rather maintain intellectual dishonesty in the face of critical analysis than accept the actual truth.

Believe you me, I am rational and willing to provisionally accept that Mellen-Thomas Benedict is a liar. Now, that still does not refute the point that people having NDE have brought back valid scientific knowledge, nor have you "wasted your time" in evaluating all points of evidence on that page. Not even close.

[BlackPanda]

questions smelling pros and cons. I can not argumeent .

[1aguar]

Trouble is, you have no basis for asserting such a thing when there is long recorded history of recognising and understanding the medical condition, 'hypergraphia' in humans, many of whom claim to be writing some sort of 'secret knowledge' and there is absolutely no recorded history of it being found, instead, to be a case of a human being channelling information from time-travelling space beings.

It matters not what you think about anything else, what is relevant in our discussion is the Phoenix Journals--are they based on hypergraphia? WHY? What evidence supports this? Who has read them all (or even a substantial amount) and evaluated that they are delusional writings, and for what reason?

philosophers will recognize the type of argument offered in the last of the above quotes. It is not unlike the Bayesian move made by David Hume offered in one of his arguments against the existence of miracles. The argument in question is that because, apart from evidence at hand, there is no prior probability for such an extraordinary event as a miracle, and because there is indeed a fairly high probability of error based on simple sense perception and human fallibility, then it is obviously more probable that miracles do not exist.

One need not believe in miracles to notice that Hume's argument is as nice a case of question-begging as one could ever find in any introductory logic book. The structure of the argument strategy proceeds as follows: whenever anybody offers an argument that challenges the paradigm position of materialistic monism, argue that it has no real probability in its favor because it conflicts with those theses that have a prior probability of being correct because they are consistent with what we already know, namely, what is asserted in the paradigm position. In such a case, then any probability in favor of human error and deceit in these matters will show that the evidence offered against the paradigm is defective. There is a great deal of epistemological voodoo in this particular Bayesian move, apart from the implicit claim that any adequate explanation of anything must be consistent with the current paradigm.

Other citations, such as articles from plosone.org, are also not immune from criticism:

What is your criticism of the science in these papers from PLOS ONE and Elsevier? I am willing to look at anyone's criticism of these two papers!

[1aguar]

Water on Mars was disclosed in 1991 in Phoenix Journal #33:

"Mars has grown very much older [than Earth]. It still has water but oxygen-dependent life is nearing its end upon it. Deserts take up a large area of it and it is more oblate than the earth."

Meanwhile, atheists like cryptodevil and fundamentalists like BADecker would like to ignore the evidence before their very eyes. They tell you not to read these Journals because the books are "stupid"; however, I am not promoting a religion, so why do they hate this information?  

Introduction to the writings:
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/gch.html
The Journal in point; also available via Google Books:
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/j033/

[BADecker]

Water on Mars was disclosed in 1991 in Phoenix Journal #33:

"Mars has grown very much older [than Earth]. It still has water but oxygen-dependent life is nearing its end upon it. Deserts take up a large area of it and it is more oblate than the earth."

Meanwhile, atheists like cryptodevil and fundamentalists like BADecker would like to ignore the evidence before their very eyes. They tell you not to read these Journals because the books are "stupid"; however, I am not promoting a religion, so why do they hate this information?  

Introduction to the writings:
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/gch.html
The Journal in point; also available via Google Books:
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/j033/

Hey! I don't hate science fiction. Science fiction can be fun. However, I must admit that in my older age, I am becoming more serious, which is taking some of the fun out of science fiction.

The creation story in Genesis shows that the material that things in space were made out of comes from the earth. This makes martian material exactly as old as earth material.

When you believe science fiction to be the truth - 1aguar believing the Phoenix Journals - you have a religion. In the case of the Phoenix Journals, it is more like a cult.