Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[BitNow]

Nobody is going to SAVE anybody or anything. There can be leaders who show the way and lead--no more and no less.

So: why are you here than, if not for being saved?

Thank You.

I am showing people like you that logic is indispensable, and you should not surrender your discernment and reason to ANY authority save for GOD WITHIN. You have to use clear thinking. As the saying goes, "God helps those who help themselves".
On this planet, I am here to harmonize my soul with my manifested fragment in balance with GOD.

MAN: THERE IS FAITH AND PHILOSOPHY.

WHY ARE YOU HERE IF NOT FOR BEING SAVED?


Thank You.

[1713965887]

1713965887

[1713965887]

1713965887

[1713965887]

1713965887

[1aguar]

MAN: THERE IS FAITH AND PHILOSOPHY.

WHY ARE YOU HERE IF NOT FOR BEING SAVED?

A great American author has stated that:
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true".

If faith contradicts reason, it is not reason that is in error.

Do you even know which GOD you worship? GOD gave you a mind so that you could discern the truth. Why would you bow down to an authority figure instead of using the reason given by GOD?

Do you think that someone will just lift you up into the clouds just for "having faith"? FAITH IN WHAT??

[BitNow]

A great American author has stated that:
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true".

If faith contradicts reason, it is not reason that is in error.

Do you even know which GOD you worship? GOD gave you a mind so that you could discern the truth. Why would you bow down to an authority figure instead of using the reason given by GOD?

Do you think that someone will just lift you up into the clouds just for "having faith"? FAITH IN WHAT??

Man: I'm not gay.

There is only one God.


Thank You.

[BADecker]

OT

If you look in the Old Testament, you will see that it was the people of Israel who asked for a king. God was even angry with them for asking for a king. Why? Because they rejected God as their king, and asked for an earthly man to be their king, just like all the other nations.

Could you point out where this is written? I thoughted it was the other way around: God told to put a King on Israel.

1 Samuel 8:6-9:

6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.”

God allowed the king. He wasn't happy with the idea. It is like when Jesus was explaining to the Pharisees about divorce, Matthew 19:7-9. Divorce is allowed, but God isn't happy with it:

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

How does the Jews governed themselfs before King David?

Did they had a democracy?

The Jews were God governing and self-governing. Here is how it worked.

God set up the laws through Moses. God set up the priests along with heads of families to judge the people.

The people didn't have any police. The people could do whatever they wanted. They all policed themselves and each other.

Here's how law enforcement worked. If someone did something that was against the law, he got away with it until someone complained to the heads of family or to the priests. Then the priests made a judgment, and the guilty person paid for his wrongdoing.

That's it. For hundreds of years nobody made any more laws. Everything was based on private property. You did wrong if you broke the law and harmed a person or damaged his property. The only other way you did wrong was to break one of God's ceremonial laws that He gave through Moses. If nobody complained, you got away with it. If someone complained falsely, then the complainer was the one who got punished.

Simple as that. And it works this way in America, as well. Anybody can do anything until somebody complains. Often it is the police who file formal complaints. But if the people knew that they were not guilty if they didn't harm anyone, most of the police complaints would die away. The people don't know, so they agree with the police that they were wrong, and they get punished for their agreement, not for any wrongdoing.

[BitNow]

The Jews were God governing and self-governing. Here is how it worked.

God set up the laws through Moses. God set up the priests along with heads of families to judge the people.

The people didn't have any police. The people could do whatever they wanted. They all policed themselves and each other.

Here's how law enforcement worked. If someone did something that was against the law, he got away with it until someone complained to the heads of family or to the priests. Then the priests made a judgment, and the guilty person paid for his wrongdoing.

That's it. For hundreds of years nobody made any more laws. Everything was based on private property. You did wrong if you broke the law and harmed a person or damaged his property. The only other way you did wrong was to break one of God's ceremonial laws that He gave through Moses. If nobody complained, you got away with it. If someone complained falsely, then the complainer was the one who got punished.

Simple as that. And it works this way in America, as well. Anybody can do anything until somebody complains. Often it is the police who file formal complaints. But if the people knew that they were not guilty if they didn't harm anyone, most of the police complaints would die away. The people don't know, so they agree with the police that they were wrong, and they get punished for their agreement, not for any wrongdoing.

Let's hope to have a king soon?


Best regards.

[popcorn1]

What if someone took all the elements that are in the human body, in exactly the same proportions that they are in the body. He placed all the elements into a container, something like a rock tumbler, and sealed the container so that they wouldn't fall out.

Next, he turned the tumbler on and mixed the chemicals. He even ran some electricity through. He added heat and cold at different times. Some of the time he caused the container to shake, violently or less violently.

Would he ever make a human being out of it? No! Never!

The body of a person is a marvelous thing. The ABSOLUTE ONLY WAY a human being can come into existence is through a man and a woman getting together and making a baby. There is NO other way.

Atheists are upset because they can't duplicate nature in some other way. Oh, sure. They can make new people in the same way that nature allows. But they don't have even the beginning of a clue about making a human in any other way. NOT EVEN A CLUE!

When religious folks come along and tell atheists that it was God that made people, they can't simply accept that, because they know that there isn't any way to make people other than the standard way that nature provided. So they are angry at theistic religious people for thinking that they know so much.

I don't blame the atheists for being angry. Christians talk about the love of God, the love of Jesus, and all the good things that God did for us. But, even they forget that Jesus didn't like weakness. In fact, Jesus hated the weakness just as much as any good atheist. Even though Jesus was a theist, He hated weakness just like any good atheist.

Many atheists (and Christians) would be surprised to find that Jesus promoted some hate. But look at what Jesus said in Luke 14:25-27:

Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple."

Being a Christian is a job. It is filled with the weakness of not being able to do your own thing. It is filled with the commands to "carry" a "cross and follow" Jesus. This isn't easy. Atheists instinctively know that living a theistic life can be a burden. They hate the idea. And Christians will hate the idea, as well.

The difference is, the true Christian will often give up the good things of life to follow the theistic, Christian way. However, it takes a good Christian to actually hate the things of life because he or she is so extremely involved with following Jesus, and being a good Christian.

STUPID PERSON..You know nothing..your always wrong on this subject

www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9XzN0-TQZc

SCIENCE IS THE KEY TO LIFE..
So BADECKER don.t be coming up with some excuse.. WHAT ARE THEY DOING NOW DUMB ASS
ALWAYS WRONG
Instead of reading the bible read about science you might learn something :
 if you really think RELIGIOUS BOOKS ARE THE TRUTH THEN YOU ARE A THICK DUMB STUPID PLANT POT IDIOT WITH NO BRAINS..
If you say religious books are just my faith..I.E i don.t believe 100% but i have faith..
MEANING hope the religious books are the truth but i cannot say for certain they are fact..
then that is OK with me..
But if you say god is fact and the religious books are fact..THEN WOW GIVE YOUR BRAINS A WOBBLE  YOU THICK STUPID PEOPLE

ALL RELIGION IS BULLSHIT FACT

[1aguar]

But if you say god is fact and the religious books are fact..THEN WOW GIVE YOUR BRAINS A WOBBLE  YOU THICK STUPID PEOPLE

Hi popcorn1,

You have consistently ignored evidence in an attempt to deny my proof of God.

Why is that?

Maybe you are the one who is "thick"?

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.

So, if GOD is NOT a fact, then surely you would have a reason to reject my proof!

You had rejected my proof because you had claimed that the NDE can be explained by brain chemistry alone; your claim is not fact, and it is obvious that you did not read too much of the evidence. Since you are wrong on that point, would you please provide a valid reason to reject the proof which demonstrates that GOD is a fact?

Why don't you try again to evaluate my proof and the empirical (scientific) evidence I have presented.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg12577349#msg12577349

[popcorn1]

The Jews were God governing and self-governing. Here is how it worked.

God set up the laws through Moses. God set up the priests along with heads of families to judge the people.

The people didn't have any police. The people could do whatever they wanted. They all policed themselves and each other.

Here's how law enforcement worked. If someone did something that was against the law, he got away with it until someone complained to the heads of family or to the priests. Then the priests made a judgment, and the guilty person paid for his wrongdoing.

That's it. For hundreds of years nobody made any more laws. Everything was based on private property. You did wrong if you broke the law and harmed a person or damaged his property. The only other way you did wrong was to break one of God's ceremonial laws that He gave through Moses. If nobody complained, you got away with it. If someone complained falsely, then the complainer was the one who got punished.

Simple as that. And it works this way in America, as well. Anybody can do anything until somebody complains. Often it is the police who file formal complaints. But if the people knew that they were not guilty if they didn't harm anyone, most of the police complaints would die away. The people don't know, so they agree with the police that they were wrong, and they get punished for their agreement, not for any wrongdoing.

Let's hope to have a king soon?


Best regards.

Iam thinking the same thing while i play POKERSTARS

[popcorn1]

But if you say god is fact and the religious books are fact..THEN WOW GIVE YOUR BRAINS A WOBBLE  YOU THICK STUPID PEOPLE

Hi popcorn1,

You have consistently ignored evidence in an attempt to deny my proof of God.

Why is that?

Maybe you are the one who is "thick"?

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.

So, if GOD is NOT a fact, then surely you would have a reason to reject my proof!

You had rejected my proof because you had claimed that the NDE can be explained by brain chemistry alone; it is obvious that you did not read too much of the evidence, and you have been shown to be wrong on this point.

Why don't you try again to evaluate my proof and the empirical (scientific) evidence I have presented.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg12577349#msg12577349

You keep saying the same thing over and over again
about your blind person who was born blind..SO IS A BAT BUT THAT CAN SEE I rest my case
 plus Emmanuel is a soft porn star
also if there was an afterlife why would there be a god ..would this not be what humans do when they die..
Also the blind girl described getting sucked into a tube..how does she know what a tube is to describe getting sucked into a tube if she was always blind..
Also as she ever dreamt in her sleep when she goes to bed to sleep?
So according to you if she was a sleep she would just see BLACK and no dreams?

[1aguar]

Hmmmm, your "case" has not really addressed anything, much less the 52 points of evidence that was referenced; I take care to explain things to you and address every detail but it seems like you are not willing to evaluate the evidence in a rational manner at all.

Any one can draw his/her own conclusions from the evidence, but it seems like you are unwilling (or unable) to read it. And then you say you "also" have a problem with my proof, but since you don't quote any part of it I am unable to help you.

So I hope you will change your ways and behave rationally. You are constantly asking religious people to behave rationally, but perhaps you should start with that "man in the mirror"?

I'm starting with the man in the mirror
I'm asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer
If you want to make the world a better place
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change

[RoomBot]

Hot Topic!

Cool discussion.

I'm not sure if one can generalize that all or most Atheists "hate" religion, but I would be willing to wager some good BTC that religious people are equally if not more prone to "hate" Atheists.

I think it's the by-products of religion Atheists "hate," things like ethnic "cleansing," wars and concentration camps, just to name a few.

I'm Agnostic, so I'll play referee for just this one post.

What's the difference between an Agnostic person and an Apathetic person?

I don't know & I don't care.

[popcorn1]

Hmmmm, your "case" has not really addressed anything, much less the 52 points of evidence that was referenced; I take care to explain things to you and address every detail but it seems like you are not willing to evaluate the evidence in a rational manner at all.

Any one can draw his/her own conclusions from the evidence, but it seems like you are unwilling (or unable) to read it. And then you say you "also" have a problem with my proof, but since you don't quote any part of it I am unable to help you.

So I hope you will change your ways and behave rationally. You are constantly asking religious people to behave rationally, but perhaps you should start with that "man in the mirror"?

I'm starting with the man in the mirror
I'm asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer
If you want to make the world a better place
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change

YES MICHAEL JACKSON..He is saying he hates him self for being a PEDO..he wants to change..
listen to his music some of his songs are about himself he hates the way he is..well was A PEDO..fact

Also the blind girl described getting sucked into a tube..how does she know what a tube is to describe getting sucked into a tube if she was always blind..
Also as she ever dreamt in her sleep when she goes to bed to sleep?
So according to you if she was a sleep she would just see BLACK and no dreams?

[RoomBot]

Michael Jackson...PEDOs...Blind girls....?

I thought the topic was, "Why do Atheists hate Religion ?"

[popcorn1]

Michael Jackson...PEDOs...Blind girls....?

I thought the topic was, "Why do Atheists hate Religion ?"

he is saying when you die there is an after life so there must be a god..
he says a blind women described an after life when how could she if she was born blind?
so i am telling him why i think he is still wrong  
take a look what he is saying..
 http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a35

[1aguar]

about your blind person who was born blind..SO IS A BAT BUT THAT CAN SEE I rest my case

1) also if there was an afterlife why would there be a god ..would this not be what humans do when they die..
2) Also the blind girl described getting sucked into a tube..how does she know what a tube is to describe getting sucked into a tube if she was always blind..
3) Also as she ever dreamt in her sleep when she goes to bed to sleep?
4) So according to you if she was a sleep she would just see BLACK and no dreams?

Let us observe how you have not made your case at all; consider that this is only one point of 52...

1) Since you did not quote my proof and point out how one point does not logically follow another, I feel you should read that first and respond in such a manner, then I will be able to answer this question.
2) Sight is not the only sense by which one can determine the nature of shapes; one can also do it by feeling and also by imagination, as described in the movie "Flatland". So since you are asking how she could have possibly known what a tube looks like, then would you not agree that indeed it seems that this person ACTUALLY PERCEIVED A TUBE?
3) I don't know, but I would ask you this question: How exactly are dreams related to perception of light? She commented that her experience was "the only time I could ever relate to seeing and to what light was, because I experienced it." And because NDEs do not share the characteristics of imagined memories (point #52), and they also change people unlike dreams (point #31), it stands to reason that real perception of light occurred. You can further observe that there is evidence of veridical perception in NDE, as per the AWARE study referenced in the introduction and points throughout the near-death site.
4) I do not make any claims about the nature of dreams or anything like that; however, I will repeat my point #3 above which distinguishes between the imagination and perception. It is good that you are asking questions, but I do not think your questions are very useful for our understanding of point #3 unless you provide an explanation of veridical perception during NDE as well. It seems that you are trying to again imply that these are imagined events when point #52 and others clearly demonstrate that they are not.

[1aguar]

Michael Jackson...PEDOs...Blind girls....?

I thought the topic was, "Why do Atheists hate Religion ?"

he is saying when you die there is an after life so there must be a god..
he says a blind women described an after life when how could she if she was born blind?
so i am telling him why i think he is still wrong  

Hey, that is not an accurate summary; this summary below could be fair, but I still advise that you read the whole proof and quote from it if you have a disagreement with the logic...
In answering the God-question ("either yes or no"), I am making an argument in favor of theism because all atheists are wrong, due to:
1) all rational atheists are humanists and
2) humanism (the idea that a rational being called Man is the founder and guarantor of knowledge) has been discredited by the 52 points of evidence (among others) as described here:
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a36

My definition: A supreme being who is the founder and guarantor of knowledge.
My proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.5300

[popcorn1]

about your blind person who was born blind..SO IS A BAT BUT THAT CAN SEE I rest my case

1) also if there was an afterlife why would there be a god ..would this not be what humans do when they die..
2) Also the blind girl described getting sucked into a tube..how does she know what a tube is to describe getting sucked into a tube if she was always blind..
3) Also as she ever dreamt in her sleep when she goes to bed to sleep?
4) So according to you if she was a sleep she would just see BLACK and no dreams?

Let us observe how you have not made your case at all; consider that this is only one point of 52...

1) Since you did not quote my proof and point out how one point does not logically follow another, I feel you should read that first and respond in such a manner, then I will be able to answer this question.
2) Sight is not the only sense by which one can determine the nature of shapes; one can also do it by feeling and also by imagination, as described in the movie "Flatland". So since you are asking how she could have possibly known what a tube looks like, then would you not agree that indeed it seems that this person ACTUALLY PERCEIVED A TUBE?
3) I don't know, but I would ask you this question: How exactly are dreams related to perception of light? She commented that her experience was "the only time I could ever relate to seeing and to what light was, because I experienced it." And because NDEs do not share the characteristics of imagined memories (point #52), and they also change people unlike dreams (point #31), it stands to reason that real perception of light occurred. You can further observe that there is evidence of veridical perception in NDE, as per the AWARE study referenced in the introduction and points throughout the near-death site.
4) I do not make any claims about the nature of dreams or anything like that; however, I will repeat my point #3 above which distinguishes between the imagination and perception. It is good that you are asking questions, but I do not think your questions are very useful for our understanding of point #3 unless you provide an explanation of veridical perception during NDE as well. It seems that you are trying to again imply that these are imagined events when point #52 and others clearly demonstrate that they are not.

NOW YOU HAVE JUST TRIPPED UP THERE BEEN WAITING FOR YOU TO SAY THAT

1) Since you did not quote my proof and point out how one point does not logically follow another, I feel you should read that first and respond in such a manner, then I will be able to answer this question.
2) Sight is not the only sense by which one can determine the nature of shapes; one can also do it by feeling and also by imagination, as described in the movie "Flatland". So since you are asking how she could have possibly known what a tube looks like, then would you not agree that indeed it seems that this person ACTUALLY PERCEIVED A TUBE?

So now you know how she could describe things in her dream..
remember i said before you die it could be the brains way of making you feel comfortable before you die..
remember I am an NDE..but still i don.t believe in god..
when people take LSD they see things they have never ever seen before. The brain makes it up how does it do this if you have never seen this before..
have you not had a dream and its been so real you want to go back asleep to get back to your dream..
have you ever dreamed of a person you have never met before ANSWER YES BILLIONS OF PEOPLE DO THIS..so how have you dreamt of someone you have never met before..BECAUSE THE BRAIN IS GOOD AT MAKING THINGS UP
its how the brain works if your a human..
also when NDEs describe the afterlife why are they not all going to the same place and see the same things..some say they saw there mums ..there granddads ..there friends..why all different..
So you see you have described how a blind person can see..now what is so hard to say the brain now can make the rest up if your a sleep or dying..
just like seeing someone in a dream you have never met before how do we do this then?

WHEN YOUR IN A DEEP SLEEP ITS LIKE YOUR DEAD
 and we all dream and we dream of things that we have never seen before.. like new places and new faces .. you can even have a new life in a dream.. and you wake up some times and your happy you woke up because its was a bad dream and sometimes you can have a good dream where you try go back asleep..
so i have explained every thing for you but you still refuse to GET REAL

[popcorn1]

Michael Jackson...PEDOs...Blind girls....?

I thought the topic was, "Why do Atheists hate Religion ?"

he is saying when you die there is an after life so there must be a god..
he says a blind women described an after life when how could she if she was born blind?
so i am telling him why i think he is still wrong  

Hey, that is not an accurate summary; this summary below could be fair, but I still advise that you read the whole proof and quote from it if you have a disagreement with the logic...
In answering the God-question ("either yes or no"), I am making an argument in favor of theism because all atheists are wrong, due to:
1) all rational atheists are humanists and
2) humanism (the idea that a rational being called Man is the founder and guarantor of knowledge) has been discredited by the 52 points of evidence (among others) as described here:
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a36

My definition: A supreme being who is the founder and guarantor of knowledge.
My proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.5300

I am a supreme being to you..because i know more than you so that makes me more of a supreme being than you are..because what you believe in is all MAKE BELIEVE ..
so i am more supreme than you a joke by the way I am just smarter than you your beliefs about a god are stupid and make no sense  

so av a nice day and take it easy

[1aguar]

NOW YOU HAVE JUST TRIPPED UP THERE BEEN WAITING FOR YOU TO SAY THAT

remember i said before you die it could be the brains way of making you feel comfortable before you die..

BECAUSE THE BRAIN IS GOOD AT MAKING THINGS UP
its how the brain works if your a human..

so i have explained every thing for you but you still refuse to GET REAL

I don't think our discussion is over unless you want to quit;
you have refused to address most of the evidence, so I will highlight the important parts for you.
I am definitely interested in learning about how the brain works to produce the NDE.
Let's see if you can explain it to me:

You once again claim that the NDE can be explained by brain chemistry alone;
Again, your claim is NOT A FACT, and it is obvious that you did not read too much of the evidence.
If your claim were true, you would be able to reply to all 52 of these points with ease,
but since you cannot, would you please reply by providing a valid reason to reject the evidence
that provides the first point for my proof, i.e. life after death?

You can start by providing valid reasons to doubt the salient points #1, #2, #32, #34, and #35:
1.   People have NDEs while they are brain dead.
2.   Out-of-body perception during NDEs have been verified.
32.   NDEs cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone.
34.   The skeptical "dying brain" theory of NDEs has major flaws.
35.   Skeptical arguments against NDEs are not valid.

[1aguar]

what you believe in is all MAKE BELIEVE ..

I don't think you will wipe out all 52 points of evidence by calling it make-believe,
and I don't believe there is any science to support your position on this subject (point #34, #35).
I have given you just five important points to consider; perhaps you could reply just to those ones.
I perceive that you are choosing not to engage me in a rational discussion. So be it.

In all reality, the evidence is powerful enough to sway anyone who wants to carefully examine all of it in a rational manner.
The only conclusion supported by all 52 points of evidence is that there is life after death.
If you disagree, then please behave rationally so that we can talk about it--ALL OF IT.

"This remarkable [compilation of evidence] details what modern physics tells us about the underlying nature of the universe and its creation, what virtually every religious and philosophical group tells us about life and death, and results from a host of research findings."

I am using reason to evaluate the facts;
my beliefs are backed by scientific evidence, not faith and fantasy.
As for skeptics, they would prefer to ignore the evidence as you are doing.
But now I have made it easy for you: please reply to the 5 points and we can move this discussion forward.