Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[BitNow]

its definitely a big facet of any religion, but i see it as just a detail. most religions want to focus on living your life in a positively influential way. a diety is just the result of the attempts to explain the origins of mankind, the universe (ex, christianty's god, resulting in the belief of creationism), everything (ex, shintoism and the belief that every set of objects has some diety attached to it), etc. its hard to really define, this is just my view on the topic.

You don't need the deity to explain anything.

You explain things with reason not faith.

Are you an atheist?


Best regards.

[subSTRATA]

its definitely a big facet of any religion, but i see it as just a detail. most religions want to focus on living your life in a positively influential way. a diety is just the result of the attempts to explain the origins of mankind, the universe (ex, christianty's god, resulting in the belief of creationism), everything (ex, shintoism and the belief that every set of objects has some diety attached to it), etc. its hard to really define, this is just my view on the topic.

You don't need the deity to explain anything.

You explain things with reason not faith.

Are you an atheist?


Best regards.

yes i am. humans find the need for an explanation to our origins. therefore, the ideas of creationism, evolution, dieties, etc came about. there is no culture from the first of mankind to now that has gone without some sort of explanation for how they or the world came about to be. some myth, science, or story always surfaces to explain the origins of the world in the current state and its people. that's not a religious view, thats just from a history / humanities view.

[BitNow]

You don't need the deity to explain anything.

You explain things with reason not faith.

Are you an atheist?


Best regards.

yes i am.
humans find the need for an explanation to our origins. therefore, the ideas of creationism, evolution, dieties, etc came about. there is no culture from the first of mankind to now that has gone without some sort of explanation for how they or the world came about to be. some myth, science, or story always surfaces to explain the origins of the world in the current state and its people.

Keep myth and science separated and you will find the truth.

that's not a religious view, thats just from a history / humanities view.

Why you need to explain?


Best regards.

[subSTRATA]

You don't need the deity to explain anything.

You explain things with reason not faith.

Are you an atheist?


Best regards.

yes i am.
humans find the need for an explanation to our origins. therefore, the ideas of creationism, evolution, dieties, etc came about. there is no culture from the first of mankind to now that has gone without some sort of explanation for how they or the world came about to be. some myth, science, or story always surfaces to explain the origins of the world in the current state and its people.

Keep myth and science separated and you will find the truth.

that's not a religious view, thats just from a history / humanities view.

Why you need to explain?


Best regards.

you're not getting the point. all I'm saying is civilizations seek explanations for their origins and the phenomena they experience, weather that explanation is mythical or scientific.

[angaper]

I used to be a religious person but no longer since I realized that this strict devotion in nothing but a waste of time because I am really convinced about the existence of something superior to us but we are prevented to know it because of our imperfect nature. Then I don't understand the real purpose of religion, it is really a useless thing that have been invented by humans to fight against each other.

[BitNow]

you're not getting the point. all I'm saying is civilizations seek explanations for their origins and the phenomena they experience, weather that explanation is mythical or scientific.

Avoiding questions is not civilization is barbarism.

Best regards.

[subSTRATA]

you're not getting the point. all I'm saying is civilizations seek explanations for their origins and the phenomena they experience, weather that explanation is mythical or scientific.

Avoiding questions is not civilization is barbarism.

Best regards.

ok, words apparently don't make sense to you, so there is no point in discussing anything with you.

[BitNow]

ok, words apparently don't make sense to you, so there is no point in discussing anything with you.

Thank You for your point of view.


Best regards.

[organofcorti]

That's not what I apologized for.

Most of what I post here is the logic of many others. Often, however, I put it together in ways others don't.

I think it is exactly what you apologised for. Here's the quote, again:

None of these links describe atheism.

So would you be happy to let atheists define religion? I think not. The links you supply are all religious in nature. How about you find an atheist site that describes atheism as a religion?

None of us disbelieve in god, we just don't care. Gods are irrelevant to the way we live.

I'm sorry. I apologize. I didn't really realize.

If you didn't apologise for not knowing that atheists are irreligious rather than antireligious, what were you apologising for?

[Funny]

Because they are disrespectful? That's why they are atheists.

[organofcorti]

Because they are disrespectful? That's why they are atheists.

Because religious people are so very respectful of other religions, aren't they?

[BADecker]

That's not what I apologized for.

Most of what I post here is the logic of many others. Often, however, I put it together in ways others don't.

I think it is exactly what you apologised for. Here's the quote, again:

None of these links describe atheism.

So would you be happy to let atheists define religion? I think not. The links you supply are all religious in nature. How about you find an atheist site that describes atheism as a religion?

None of us disbelieve in god, we just don't care. Gods are irrelevant to the way we live.

I'm sorry. I apologize. I didn't really realize.

If you didn't apologise for not knowing that atheists are irreligious rather than antireligious, what were you apologising for?

All right, all right. I didn't want to do this, but since you insist...

The post in question was your post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg13273365#msg13273365. In that post you stated, "Argument is usually profitable, if both sides are willing to listen." Well, I could possibly agree with that. We could argue forever about whether arguing is profitable or not. I agree it sometimes is profitable, but that it is also not profitable at other times. However, that is not the thing that I was apologizing for.

The next thing you said was, "Neither Google nor DuckDuckGo are authorities on the subject of atheism. Try an atheist site instead." Well, Obviously Google and DuckDuckGo are not authorities on atheism. They are search engines. They present links to many different sites about various things that a person asks questions about. However, an atheism site is probably going to be biased about atheism. So, it is not in one's best interest to look only at atheism sites for info about atheism, if they want to get a look at the subject from all sides. The point is, this isn't what I was apologizing for either. After all, I didn't make the statements. You did.

Next, right above my quote containing some links to sites that explain what atheism is, and how it is aligned with what a religion is, you wrote, "No. Really really no. That's not atheism at all." And following my link quote you wrote, "None of these links describe atheism." Yet atheism was, like, the entire point of the info in those links... describing atheism. The point here is, you have your opinion. That's okay. I can't apologize for you having an opinion; it isn't my fault you have opinions; so that wasn't what I was apologizing for.

So, what was I apologizing for? I was apologizing that I was taking unfair mental advantage of some near-retarded joker who thinks that anybody would think that search engines might possibly be authorities on atheism; or one who wants to bolster his ideals with limited, not-necessarily-factual information; and one who by his expressing of his "belief" goes entirely against the beliefs of many others, without allowing that some of those others might be right.

I was also apologizing for "roughly" dealing with a weak mentality that doesn't even recognize that the way he is handling his describing of atheism is in a totally religious way.

Honest and fair people don't deal roughly with children. At least not the first time. And I still don't want to deal even the slightest in a rough way with your mentality. But you are pushing the issue.



EDIT: Now, I know you will have trouble understanding what I have written above. But that's okay. Other people will understand.

[1aguar]

Reality is quite the contrary actually. Only a handful of events occur in nature that is not yet described and linked mathematically to a theory.

Really, only a handful?

Have these events ever been linked mathematically to a theory?

1) Ancient megaliths like the Temple of the Three Windows
2) Evolution of domesticated plants: link
3) Hard problem of consciousness: link
4) Veridical perception during near-death experience: link
5) Origin of life: link
6) The top cases demonstrating the survival of the human personality after the demise of the physical body, including a chess game played with a dead chessmaster:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

[BADecker]

Reality is quite the contrary actually. Only a handful of events occur in nature that is not yet described and linked mathematically to a theory.

In addition, just because there is a theory doesn't mean that there might not be a host of other theories about the same thing, some of them precisely opposite of others. Nor does it mean that the theory necessarily is going to be found out to be fact.

Theory is a good guess, and sometimes, a not so good guess.

Keep focusing on theories and you will have a wonderful science fiction story or two, or thousands.

Really, only a handful?

Have these events ever been linked mathematically to a theory?

1) Ancient megaliths like the Temple of the Three Windows
2) Evolution of domesticated plants: link
3) Hard problem of consciousness: link
4) Veridical perception during near-death experience: link
5) Origin of life: link
6) The top cases demonstrating the survival of the human personality after the demise of the physical body, including a chess game played with a dead chessmaster:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

[1aguar]

Keep focusing on theories and you will have a wonderful science fiction story or two, or thousands.

If you think that you are saved by the work of someone else, fine; feel free to sit around and wait for your savior to take you away on a cloud. It makes me sad, but it is absolutely your choice to wait around for that. I will not wait because this world needs healing, so I focus on creating the soul-ution within my being so that it may be mainfested when the season is right; God demands spiritual fruit, not religious nuts.

With good theories, you will inevitably have a workable hypothesis that you can use to create things scientifically, including technologies and inventions that can help the world's people.

For example, no amount of Biblical study has ever allowed a human to be able to create manna or anything similar, but with a workable theory it would be possible and indeed it IS possible. I do not need a Bible for that, I need a rational understanding of how it works.

[helloeverybody]

Imagine how many wars and conflicts would end if everyone woke up as atheists tomorrow,  it's no secret that religion has been the contributing factor to most wars throughout history.

[organofcorti]

......
Next, right above my quote containing some links to sites that explain what atheism is, and how it is aligned with what a religion is, you wrote, "No. Really really no. That's not atheism at all." And following my link quote you wrote, "None of these links describe atheism." Yet atheism was, like, the entire point of the info in those links... describing atheism. The point here is, you have your opinion. That's okay. I can't apologize for you having an opinion; it isn't my fault you have opinions; so that wasn't what I was apologizing for.

 All your links are religious sites attempting to explain atheism.

Atheism explained by religious people is one minority trying to explain another minority that they've never met before. It doesn't work.

Therefore none of those links describe atheism, they describe what religious people think atheism actually is.

So, what was I apologizing for? I was apologizing that I was taking unfair mental advantage of some near-retarded joker who thinks that anybody would think that search engines might possibly be authorities on atheism; or one who wants to bolster his ideals with limited, not-necessarily-factual information; and one who by his expressing of his "belief" goes entirely against the beliefs of many others, without allowing that some of those others might be right.

I was also apologizing for "roughly" dealing with a weak mentality that doesn't even recognize that the way he is handling his describing of atheism is in a totally religious way.

Honest and fair people don't deal roughly with children. At least not the first time. And I still don't want to deal even the slightest in a rough way with your mentality. But you are pushing the issue.



EDIT: Now, I know you will have trouble understanding what I have written above. But that's okay. Other people will understand.

From context, your post doesn't actually mention being sorry for any of the ad-hominem attack you write above. I think you just made it up solely for this post.

As I've mentioned before nothing about my beliefs are religious. I have no opinion about magical sky fathers, rock spirits, snake men or any of the multitude of religious beliefs.

And if some god appears and claims to be the one true god and that god has no other explanation, I'll change my mind.

Anyway, each time you write about what you think I believe, I'll be here to correct you. I won't even take you to task for your irrational ad-hominem attacks.

[bitbunnny]

I don't think that atheists hate religion and they don't respect people who are religious. This just a prejudice. If you don't beleive in god(s) that doesn't mean that you don't respect religions in general

[BADecker]

......
Next, right above my quote containing some links to sites that explain what atheism is, and how it is aligned with what a religion is, you wrote, "No. Really really no. That's not atheism at all." And following my link quote you wrote, "None of these links describe atheism." Yet atheism was, like, the entire point of the info in those links... describing atheism. The point here is, you have your opinion. That's okay. I can't apologize for you having an opinion; it isn't my fault you have opinions; so that wasn't what I was apologizing for.

 All your links are religious sites attempting to explain atheism.

Atheism explained by religious people is one minority trying to explain another minority that they've never met before. It doesn't work.

Therefore none of those links describe atheism, they describe what religious people think atheism actually is.

So, what was I apologizing for? I was apologizing that I was taking unfair mental advantage of some near-retarded joker who thinks that anybody would think that search engines might possibly be authorities on atheism; or one who wants to bolster his ideals with limited, not-necessarily-factual information; and one who by his expressing of his "belief" goes entirely against the beliefs of many others, without allowing that some of those others might be right.

I was also apologizing for "roughly" dealing with a weak mentality that doesn't even recognize that the way he is handling his describing of atheism is in a totally religious way.

Honest and fair people don't deal roughly with children. At least not the first time. And I still don't want to deal even the slightest in a rough way with your mentality. But you are pushing the issue.



EDIT: Now, I know you will have trouble understanding what I have written above. But that's okay. Other people will understand.

From context, your post doesn't actually mention being sorry for any of the ad-hominem attack you write above. I think you just made it up solely for this post.

As I've mentioned before nothing about my beliefs are religious. I have no opinion about magical sky fathers, rock spirits, snake men or any of the multitude of religious beliefs.

And if some god appears and claims to be the one true god and that god has no other explanation, I'll change my mind.

Anyway, each time you write about what you think I believe, I'll be here to correct you. I won't even take you to task for your irrational ad-hominem attacks.

Now, look at the points you made above. Most of them are points about your religion. They are your doctrines. The more you emphasize them, the stronger your religion becomes. Notice in the definitions, #6, below.

From Dictionary.com at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion:
a religion to one's vow.

EDIT: Besides, saying the truth isn't ad hominem.

[BADecker]

Imagine how many wars and conflicts would end if everyone woke up as atheists tomorrow,  it's no secret that religion has been the contributing factor to most wars throughout history.

If everyone woke up as atheists tomorrow - I mean true atheists - Jesus would return and the judgment day would be here. There would be no more wars because this universe would be over.

The religion of atheism has by far been the largest contributor to wars throughout history.