Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[BADecker]

Au contraire mon frere. You wanted to get back on to the thread's topic. I asked for proof that that as a class atheists hate all religions, since that what the thread title asks. If we're not getting anywhere its only because you *dont* want to get the thread back on topic.

There you go again, with your standard old deception.    

Deception? You were the one to want to get back on topic:

Actually, it is your challenge that changes the subject.

The on-topic part that I was doing was to show why atheists hate religion. You and your challenges without doing your research, shows how you would rather change the subject so that we move away from the proof that God exists, and away from showing atheists why they hate religion... which is... because religion is right, and not even atheists like being proven wrong.

The topic is: Why do Atheists hate Religion?
I asked: What proof is there that this is true?

What is deceptive? Pots and kettles, buddy.

Well, I should probably be thanking you for focusing on me rather than how science proves God exits. But what else can you do? since you can't refute the science. So, thanks for helping to validate the science by showing folks how you can't refute it.

[1713958768]

1713958768

[BADecker]

You know, maybe you're an atheist, but you're truly devoted to your fight against religion, no doubt about that. Cause spending so much energy on a debate with someone obviously disagreeing fundamentally with you is close to faith you know?

What I care about is wooly thinking and people who try to deceive others by presenting logical fallacies as a real argument. Whether that's by someone who is religious or atheist or a sheep shagger, I care not.

If spending energy on a discussion is a religion, then logic is my religion and my God is maths, and people who make illogical or purposely misleading arguments are sinners who offend my religious sensibilities.

Your God is math? Math, the way it is used by people, is faulty, right at its base and core.

Since there are no two things that are exactly the same, 1 + 1 can never equal 2; 1 + 1 will always equal 1 + 1. When someone says that 1 + 1 = 2, he is formulating a lie.

Math is the beginning into faulty thinking. The deeper one goes into math, the harder it is to use it, and the easier it is to show its inherent mistakes. Even with computers it ultimately fails.

You are worshiping a false god in math.

[BADecker]

You know, maybe you're an atheist, but you're truly devoted to your fight against religion, no doubt about that. Cause spending so much energy on a debate with someone obviously disagreeing fundamentally with you is close to faith you know?

What I care about is wooly thinking and people who try to deceive others by presenting logical fallacies as a real argument. Whether that's by someone who is religious or atheist or a sheep shagger, I care not.

If spending energy on a discussion is a religion, then logic is my religion and my God is maths, and people who make illogical or purposely misleading arguments are sinners who offend my religious sensibilities.

Lol.
I didn't want to talk about religion but more about the fact that you truly have faith in your opponents to maybe one day change their opinion.  Which they won't obviously.

But I don't think they're are any logical fallacies in BADecker words. It's just that there is no logic at all that's all. Everything is fine until you corner him somewhere and he just ignores parts of your arguments that he can't deal with 

And, as I thanked organofcorti, so I thank you. Thanks for picking on me, thereby showing that you don't have any way to disprove the science I have shown... which science proves the existence of God.

[BitNow]

Math is the beginning into faulty thinking. The deeper one goes into math, the harder it is to use it, and the easier it is to show its inherent mistakes. Even with computers it ultimately fails.

You are worshiping a false god in math.

There is no God in math,
"Vires in numeris" means "Truth in Numbers"

Truth and God are 2 different things as Science and knowledge and as the Bible (KJV) should have separated.


Best regards.

[BADecker]

You know, maybe you're an atheist, but you're truly devoted to your fight against religion, no doubt about that. Cause spending so much energy on a debate with someone obviously disagreeing fundamentally with you is close to faith you know?

What I care about is wooly thinking and people who try to deceive others by presenting logical fallacies as a real argument. Whether that's by someone who is religious or atheist or a sheep shagger, I care not.

If spending energy on a discussion is a religion, then logic is my religion and my God is maths, and people who make illogical or purposely misleading arguments are sinners who offend my religious sensibilities.

Lol.
I didn't want to talk about religion but more about the fact that you truly have faith in your opponents to maybe one day change their opinion.  Which they won't obviously.

I continue the discussion for readers who might be mislead by people who have an agenda. I have no hope whatsoever of changing BADecker mind, or whatever BitNow uses to do his thinking, but I do hope that I can reveal their arguments to be the unsupportable opinions they are.

Oh, this is so rare.  

"I continue the discussion for readers who might be mislead by people who have an agenda." Translation. "I continue the discussion for readers who might be mislead by myself and my agenda."

"I have no hope whatsoever of changing BADecker mind, or whatever BitNow uses to do his thinking..." Translation. "Badecker and BitNow are two people I won't be able to mislead by my agenda."

"...but I do hope that I can reveal their arguments to be the unsupportable opinions they are." Translation. "But I hope that I can change the focus of other people by calling their facts opinions."

But I don't think they're are any logical fallacies in BADecker words. It's just that there is no logic at all that's all. Everything is fine until you corner him somewhere and he just ignores parts of your arguments that he can't deal with 

When he is trying to argue, the arguments regularly contain excluded middles, ad-hominem attacks and strawman arguments. Logic goes out the window only when that is pointed out to him.

Well, thank you again for showing us that the only thing you express about science proving the existence of God, is ad-hominem attacks in subtle form.

If you really believed that science didn't prove the existence of God in the ways that I have said, you would have provided some kind of scientific explanation or evidence backing beliefs up. Rather, you continually focus on me, and attempt to turn the science I use into, simply, my opinions.

Thank you for helping to confirm the science I express, by showing over and over again that you are unable to refute it. And thank you for making the confirmation even stronger, by using subtle ad-hominem attacks on me, thereby proving that you have no other capability.

[BADecker]

Luckily I never said the word Logic once!

Think what would have happened if I had said the word Faith: would you had been started your personal war against religion?


Best regards.

Well, now. We wouldn't know that about you, if you hadn't told us. Why not? Because we don't hear anything that you say.

But you have posted with the word logic in many of your posts. You post that I am quoting, above, has logic in it.

 

[BitNow]

You know, maybe you're an atheist, but you're truly devoted to your fight against religion, no doubt about that. Cause spending so much energy on a debate with someone obviously disagreeing fundamentally with you is close to faith you know?

What I care about is wooly thinking and people who try to deceive others by presenting logical fallacies as a real argument. Whether that's by someone who is religious or atheist or a sheep shagger, I care not.

If spending energy on a discussion is a religion, then logic is my religion and my God is maths, and people who make illogical or purposely misleading arguments are sinners who offend my religious sensibilities.

Lol.
I didn't want to talk about religion but more about the fact that you truly have faith in your opponents to maybe one day change their opinion.  Which they won't obviously.

I continue the discussion for readers who might be mislead by people who have an agenda. I have no hope whatsoever of changing BADecker mind, or whatever BitNow uses to do his thinking, but I do hope that I can reveal their arguments to be the unsupportable opinions they are.

Oh, this is so rare.  

"I continue the discussion for readers who might be mislead by people who have an agenda." Translation. "I continue the discussion for readers who might be mislead by myself and my agenda."

"I have no hope whatsoever of changing BADecker mind, or whatever BitNow uses to do his thinking..." Translation. "Badecker and BitNow are two people I won't be able to mislead by my agenda."

"...but I do hope that I can reveal their arguments to be the unsupportable opinions they are." Translation. "But I hope that I can change the focus of other people by calling their facts opinions."

+1

But I don't think they're are any logical fallacies in BADecker words. It's just that there is no logic at all that's all. Everything is fine until you corner him somewhere and he just ignores parts of your arguments that he can't deal with 

When he is trying to argue, the arguments regularly contain excluded middles, ad-hominem attacks and strawman arguments. Logic goes out the window only when that is pointed out to him.

Well, thank you again for showing us that the only thing you express about science proving the existence of God, is ad-hominem attacks in subtle form.

If you really believed that science didn't prove the existence of God in the ways that I have said, you would have provided some kind of scientific explanation or evidence backing beliefs up. Rather, you continually focus on me, and attempt to turn the science I use into, simply, my opinions.

Thank you for helping to confirm the science I express, by showing over and over again that you are unable to refute it. And thank you for making the confirmation even stronger, by using subtle ad-hominem attacks on me, thereby proving that you have no other capability.

The existence of God is a problem of Faith: you have it or you don't have it.

Use it wisely.


Best regards.

[BADecker]

I have no problem with faith. It's only when you try to present science as faith that I have a problem.

Of course you have a problem: you have no Faith!

Science comes from Wisdom which comes from fearing the Lord.

You are trying to get Science without Wisdom: there is no Science in stupidity, you need to find Wisdom!

Wisdom comes from fearing the Lord so you need to start to have Faith.

I have no need to start a war against anything, but if I ever do I know just the wannabe genocidal maniac to get in touch with.

Instead arguing: starts to have Faith and you will find Wisdom and hence Science.

For any doubt or information feel free to ask.


Best regards.

Oh, get off it, BitNow. Everybody has faith. They have faith that things will happen.

Nobody knows the future. Nobody knows for a fact that within the next two seconds some tiny fragment of a meteor is not going to hit them in the head and kill them. But if it's not a meteor, nobody know that some freak chemical action in their body won't kill them, since it has happened to other unsuspecting people in the past.

Everybody lives on faith, even though they may not realize it.

[BitNow]

Oh, get off it, BitNow. Everybody has faith. They have faith that things will happen.

Nobody know the future. Nobody knows for a fact that withing the next two seconds some tiny fragment of a meteor is not going to hit them in the head and kill them. But if it's not a meteor, nobody know that some freak chemical action in their body won't kill them, since it has happened to other unsuspecting people in the past.

Everybody lives on faith, even though they may not realize it.

That's an argument.


Best regards.

[BADecker]

You asked if I would start a war against religion because you mentioned faith.  I wrote I have no problem with faith, only with your characterisation of science. Now you write "Of course you have a problem: you have no Faith!". This is meaningless, unless you think that science == faith, which as I explained to you before is a contradiction in terms.

Now it is you who is talking without thinking. Science DOES equal faith in all sorts of ways. What scientist would look for some aspect of science if he didn't have faith that it could be found? Who would ever formulate scientific theories if he didn't have faith that they might be able to be proven? or if he didn't have faith that his theories would help him prove other things in science? or if he didn't have faith that his peer review would earn him status or money somehow? Most of science absolutely does equal faith.

[BADecker]

The existence of God is a problem of Faith: you have it or you don't have it.

Use it wisely.


Best regards.

Everybody lives by faith. It is the nature of people. Because it is their nature, it is difficult for them to look at the fact objectively.

Going back to the time that people were formed in their mommy's tummy, people have been learning the truth of God through nature that was building them. They simply forgot it, like we all forget most things from a time of early childhood and before. But, it is still deep down in the subconscious of all people.

All people believe in the existence of God. They simply don't know that they believe this way. The things of life have distracted them. The more they are distracted, the more they forget the early knowledge of God that was building them up in mommy's tummy, and the further they go towards old age and death.

A formal believer in God, simply believes in God a tiny bit on the outside (besides his faith from early childhood, that is). He is still forgetting the early childhood and fetus memories about God. That is why even Godly people die.

There is a Bible passage in the New Testament that goes something like this, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." In other words, fill yourself constantly on the Bible. God will work all kinds of miracles in you, because your faith will be strengthened and increased.

[organofcorti]

You asked if I would start a war against religion because you mentioned faith.  I wrote I have no problem with faith, only with your characterisation of science. Now you write "Of course you have a problem: you have no Faith!". This is meaningless, unless you think that science == faith, which as I explained to you before is a contradiction in terms.

Now it is you who is talking without thinking. Science DOES equal faith in all sorts of ways. What scientist would look for some aspect of science if he didn't have faith that it could be found?

Of course the scientist doesn't have faith an answer can be found, she has hopes and expectations. If she had faith, she wouldn't bother looking.

Who would ever formulate scientific theories if he didn't have faith that they might be able to be proven?

Every scientist I've ever met.

or if he didn't have faith that his theories would help him prove other things in science? or if he didn't have faith that his peer review would earn him status or money somehow? Most of science absolutely does equal faith.

Again, no. Maybe some scientists have faith they will find what they're looking for, but I've never met them. They all hope to make discoveries, but none of them are arrogant enough to have faith that they'll be the ones to do it.

[organofcorti]

Au contraire mon frere. You wanted to get back on to the thread's topic. I asked for proof that that as a class atheists hate all religions, since that what the thread title asks. If we're not getting anywhere its only because you *dont* want to get the thread back on topic.

There you go again, with your standard old deception.    

Deception? You were the one to want to get back on topic:

Actually, it is your challenge that changes the subject.

The on-topic part that I was doing was to show why atheists hate religion. You and your challenges without doing your research, shows how you would rather change the subject so that we move away from the proof that God exists, and away from showing atheists why they hate religion... which is... because religion is right, and not even atheists like being proven wrong.

The topic is: Why do Atheists hate Religion?
I asked: What proof is there that this is true?

What is deceptive? Pots and kettles, buddy.

Well, I should probably be thanking you for focusing on me rather than how science proves God exits. But what else can you do? since you can't refute the science. So, thanks for helping to validate the science by showing folks how you can't refute it.

What else can I do? I can try to keep your wandering mind on topic. What proof is there that Atheists hate Religion?

[valta4065]

Math is the beginning into faulty thinking. The deeper one goes into math, the harder it is to use it, and the easier it is to show its inherent mistakes. Even with computers it ultimately fails.

You are worshiping a false god in math.

There is no God in math,
"Vires in numeris" means "Truth in Numbers"

Truth and God are 2 different things as Science and knowledge and as the Bible (KJV) should have separated.


Best regards.

Perfect! The answer is here! You refute Science and maths.

I don't think it's necessary to go further with you on this debate. You clearly live in a different world.

[organofcorti]

You know, maybe you're an atheist, but you're truly devoted to your fight against religion, no doubt about that. Cause spending so much energy on a debate with someone obviously disagreeing fundamentally with you is close to faith you know?

What I care about is wooly thinking and people who try to deceive others by presenting logical fallacies as a real argument. Whether that's by someone who is religious or atheist or a sheep shagger, I care not.

If spending energy on a discussion is a religion, then logic is my religion and my God is maths, and people who make illogical or purposely misleading arguments are sinners who offend my religious sensibilities.

Lol.
I didn't want to talk about religion but more about the fact that you truly have faith in your opponents to maybe one day change their opinion.  Which they won't obviously.

I continue the discussion for readers who might be mislead by people who have an agenda. I have no hope whatsoever of changing BADecker mind, or whatever BitNow uses to do his thinking, but I do hope that I can reveal their arguments to be the unsupportable opinions they are.

Oh, this is so rare.  

Not really rare, no.

"I continue the discussion for readers who might be mislead by people who have an agenda." Translation. "I continue the discussion for readers who might be mislead by myself and my agenda."

I've made my agenda clear. I'm not pro anything other than truth and logic, and I'll always own up to it. I have made no misleading posts.

"I have no hope whatsoever of changing BADecker mind, or whatever BitNow uses to do his thinking..." Translation. "Badecker and BitNow are two people I won't be able to mislead by my agenda."

No, you're two people who have such ossified thinking that I won't be able to change your mind.

"...but I do hope that I can reveal their arguments to be the unsupportable opinions they are." Translation. "But I hope that I can change the focus of other people by calling their facts opinions."

Again, no. Your statements are unsupported, and many unsupportable. They are opinions until you can prove them to be otherwise.

But I don't think they're are any logical fallacies in BADecker words. It's just that there is no logic at all that's all. Everything is fine until you corner him somewhere and he just ignores parts of your arguments that he can't deal with  

When he is trying to argue, the arguments regularly contain excluded middles, ad-hominem attacks and strawman arguments. Logic goes out the window only when that is pointed out to him.

Well, thank you again for showing us that the only thing you express about science proving the existence of God, is ad-hominem attacks in subtle form.

Subtle ad hominem attacks? If they're subtle, they can't be very attacky, can they?

Seriously though, if you take the piss -- which you regularly do -- I may respond in kind, if I can be bothered. But that's not an "ad hominem attack" -- I'm not trying to prove a point or make an agument if I call you a callous dolt.

OTOH your posts recently always do make ad hominem attacks, and not very subtly either.

If you really believed that science didn't prove the existence of God in the ways that I have said, you would have provided some kind of scientific explanation or evidence backing beliefs up.

I have tried to have that discussion with you, but every time I ask you to prove an assertion you fail to do so, and get all cranky and eventually just call your assertion a fact.

Rather, you continually focus on me, and attempt to turn the science I use into, simply, my opinions.

I'm not focussing on you and it's egotistical to think so. You post here a lot. I'm responding to your posts. If you want to start another discussion about the proof of god, go ahead.

Thank you for helping to confirm the science I express, by showing over and over again that you are unable to refute it. And thank you for making the confirmation even stronger,

You don't express science, and you have made no arguments. You just make statements and fail to prove them. That's not an argument, it's lecturing. If you can handle someone questioning your ideas, don't post.

by using subtle ad-hominem attacks on me, thereby proving that you have no other capability.

I've made no ad hominem attacks, subtle or otherwise. I've called you names, sure ( egotistical, callous, unfeeling, incompetent, illogical, easily upset, childish,  are just a few that I've either used or consider using) but I haven't done so in the hopes of using that to win an argument. You do.

[organofcorti]

You asked if I would start a war against religion because you mentioned faith.  I wrote I have no problem with faith, only with your characterisation of science. Now you write "Of course you have a problem: you have no Faith!". This is meaningless, unless you think that science == faith, which as I explained to you before is a contradiction in terms.

Now it is you who is talking without thinking. Science DOES equal faith in all sorts of ways. What scientist would look for some aspect of science if he didn't have faith that it could be found? Who would ever formulate scientific theories if he didn't have faith that they might be able to be proven? or if he didn't have faith that his theories would help him prove other things in science? or if he didn't have faith that his peer review would earn him status or money somehow? Most of science absolutely does equal faith.

No. I've never met a scientist arrogant enough to *have faith* they're right. There will be undoubtedly be some, but the ones i know *hope* they're right. If they had faith they were right, they wouldn't bother with experiments since that would be a waste of time.

Replace "faith" with "hope" in your statement above and you'll be nearer the mark.

[yugo23]

You asked if I would start a war against religion because you mentioned faith.  I wrote I have no problem with faith, only with your characterisation of science. Now you write "Of course you have a problem: you have no Faith!". This is meaningless, unless you think that science == faith, which as I explained to you before is a contradiction in terms.

Now it is you who is talking without thinking. Science DOES equal faith in all sorts of ways. What scientist would look for some aspect of science if he didn't have faith that it could be found? Who would ever formulate scientific theories if he didn't have faith that they might be able to be proven? or if he didn't have faith that his theories would help him prove other things in science? or if he didn't have faith that his peer review would earn him status or money somehow? Most of science absolutely does equal faith.

No. I've never met a scientist arrogant enough to *have faith* they're right. There will be undoubtedly be some, but the ones i know *hope* they're right. If they had faith they were right, they wouldn't bother with experiments since that would be a waste of time.

Replace "faith" with "hope" in your statement above and you'll be nearer the mark.

Faith is when your mind doesn't know but your heart tells you so.
Scientists don't hink with their heart but with their brain. So they can't have faith. That would be a nonsense.

Of course they sometimes have faith in their theories and that's why they do test it. But they just have faith in their vision of the world, then they test, and they know if they're wrong or right.

But we don't have faith in gravity BADecker xD

[BADecker]

You asked if I would start a war against religion because you mentioned faith.  I wrote I have no problem with faith, only with your characterisation of science. Now you write "Of course you have a problem: you have no Faith!". This is meaningless, unless you think that science == faith, which as I explained to you before is a contradiction in terms.

Now it is you who is talking without thinking. Science DOES equal faith in all sorts of ways. What scientist would look for some aspect of science if he didn't have faith that it could be found?

Of course the scientist doesn't have faith an answer can be found, she has hopes and expectations. If she had faith, she wouldn't bother looking.

Obviously, both kinds have faith. They simply have faith in different things.

Who would ever formulate scientific theories if he didn't have faith that they might be able to be proven?

Every scientist I've ever met.

Now you are telling us you haven't met any scientists.

or if he didn't have faith that his theories would help him prove other things in science? or if he didn't have faith that his peer review would earn him status or money somehow? Most of science absolutely does equal faith.

Again, no. Maybe some scientists have faith they will find what they're looking for, but I've never met them. They all hope to make discoveries, but none of them are arrogant enough to have faith that they'll be the ones to do it.

You've never met them. You've talked to them a great deal by phone or letter, then? How else would you know about their arrogance or lack of it? Are you a mind reader who focuses on scientists?

[BADecker]

Au contraire mon frere. You wanted to get back on to the thread's topic. I asked for proof that that as a class atheists hate all religions, since that what the thread title asks. If we're not getting anywhere its only because you *dont* want to get the thread back on topic.

There you go again, with your standard old deception.    

Deception? You were the one to want to get back on topic:

Actually, it is your challenge that changes the subject.

The on-topic part that I was doing was to show why atheists hate religion. You and your challenges without doing your research, shows how you would rather change the subject so that we move away from the proof that God exists, and away from showing atheists why they hate religion... which is... because religion is right, and not even atheists like being proven wrong.

The topic is: Why do Atheists hate Religion?
I asked: What proof is there that this is true?

What is deceptive? Pots and kettles, buddy.

Well, I should probably be thanking you for focusing on me rather than how science proves God exits. But what else can you do? since you can't refute the science. So, thanks for helping to validate the science by showing folks how you can't refute it.

What else can I do? I can try to keep your wandering mind on topic. What proof is there that Atheists hate Religion?

That is part of the point. Many atheists don't hate religion. These are the ones who barely consider their atheism.

The atheists who hate religion are far more atheistic than the ones who barely consider atheism. Both of them have their religion. Those of them who hate religion, are far more into the religion of atheism than those who don't. They are also far more into hating themselves.

"Leave me alone," they say. "Let me squander the little bit of life I have, before I wind up destroying myself completely, just to get away from the religion that I am."

[BADecker]

Math is the beginning into faulty thinking. The deeper one goes into math, the harder it is to use it, and the easier it is to show its inherent mistakes. Even with computers it ultimately fails.

You are worshiping a false god in math.

There is no God in math,
"Vires in numeris" means "Truth in Numbers"

Truth and God are 2 different things as Science and knowledge and as the Bible (KJV) should have separated.


Best regards.

Perfect! The answer is here! You refute Science and maths.

I don't think it's necessary to go further with you on this debate. You clearly live in a different world.

When science uses math, it uses virtual reality. Math doesn't work in reality... at least not the standard math that we have. The thing that happens is, scientists figure things out in the virtual reality, and apply them without the virtual reality to real life. Some of them work. As the math gets more complex, less of it works in reality.

However, it isn't only the scientists that do this. Kids in school adapt to the Internet so extremely well, because subconsciously they have recognized that the Internet is great virtual reality, just like the math that they have been learning. Their subconscious applies the virtual reality of math to the virtual reality of the Internet, and they thrive on it.

Women are practical. Often women don't understand math very well. Check the statistics. Girls in school generally have a much harder time understanding math. It's because they are way more practical with reality. They don't understand the virtual reality that math is because of how practical they are.