Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[BADecker]

Right. Stop imposing the religion of science theory like Big Bang Theory and Black Hole Theory on our kids in the public schools.

Teach the kids reading, writing and arithmetic in school. Forget all the other nonsense, except if the kids and their parents want to go that route.

Yeah, stop teaching science to the masses. The last thing we want is religious nutters tainting scientific studies with non factual data, although we could release all the tainted scientific papers in a separate book and call it "The Bible 2 - How To Hold Back Humanity For Another 5000 Years".

I don't think we should stop teaching science to people. After all, we uses aspects of it in our lives everyday. In fact, people of all times have used the science of levers to move trees and rocks to build the homes they lived in.

The thing we should do is something like you suggested. Take the things of science that are theories, and state them as such, possibly in a separate section of science. For example, NASA at http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html has many pages that have various science theories listed as fact, when it is not know that these things are fact. Among them are the two that I mentioned above, Big Bang Theory and Black Hole Theory. Three others that are common are Evolution theory, E=MC², and Gravity theory.

The mix-up seems to lie in the connection between reality and the theory. For example. Gravity is real. It is a science that exists, that everybody uses everyday, and many people understand in limited form. But the explanation of gravity that we call the Theory of Gravity isn't necessarily correct.

It almost seems that some big organizations are attempting to teach science fiction as real science, simply because aspects of real science are used in making the fictional theory.

BADdecker, it's posts like this from you that lack your usual bible thumping that make me think that we're dealing with someone who is either not of stable mind, or a different person entirely.

We could get all abstract and talk about living in a simulation, but that doesn't fit the understanding of common people.

The things that fit the understanding of common people have to do with simple science all over the place.

More complex science proves, and nature shows, that God exists.

The history of the Bible shows that there is miracle-strength as well as miraculous strength in the Bible. The Bible is truth, but even if one can't discern much of the truth in it, more truth can be seen in it than anywhere else except, possibly... actual real "stuff" that we live with right at our fingertips... stuff that we can feel, taste, smell, recognize easily.

God, the Bible and real science are all tied together. Some people who don't like the idea of God (who knows why?) are trying to make reality to be warped in the minds of common people by expressing things that are not necessarily true, as though they were truth.

I agree with your sentiment regarding the classification of theories. What you're missing though is the fact that scientific theories are already labelled as such ie.

I'm not missing that at all. Somebody is though. How do we know? They are claiming that the things of at least some of the theories are factual when they don't know this to be true.

The distinction is this. Theories exist; this is the truth. The major point of every theory is an unknown. Why mix the two? Say it like it is.

Theory of Evolution, Big Bang Theory etc. You need to take this classification one step further and include religions as theory ie. Theory of Christianity, Theory of Islam etc. Once you do this you can then set about finding evidence to prove each theory and offer this evidence to peers to examine, review and reproduce. If reproducible, then your theory becomes an understanding that it has been proven to be a reality.

The distinction here is that when scientists examine Christianity and the the Bible as thoroughly as they examine other things, and make the examination outside of their theories, the Bible and Christianity come way closer to being proven accurate than many of their theories. Of course, where a theory does not have anything to do with something in the Bible or Christianity, this distinction isn't evident.

For the record, I attended a school where both religion (Catholic) and science were taught side by side.

Such a thing (your schooling) might make it even more difficult for you to see the truth. Why? Because often schools that teach science theory along with religion attempt to make the two to be compatible with each other.

For example. The Bible suggests in several places that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. And, there is at least one way that the Bible says that the earth is only a little over 6,000 years old ( http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm ). But the Roman Church used to teach for a while (and may still teach this) that the creation story in the Bible shows billions of years, just to make it compatible with modern science theory.

On the opposite side, when you get into the basic papers that detail the age of the earth, the scientists that say that the earth appears to be billions of years old, say that they don't really know it as fact. But they are saying it this way so that there can be a general, organized order in science.

Then the common person looks at the general order idea that the scientists put together, and thinks that the scientists have found out that the earth is billions of years old. And other scientists, who have not done the studies, gloss over the fact that the papers state that they don't know for sure, and base their science on the wrong idea. And this is only one of the major false science ideas out there.

Then others come along and expand it all into Big Bang. And the media and the universities publish. And ignorant people believe what they publish, and support them with grants, and send their kids to school there. But the whole thing is based on either a theory or else a complete lie.

[Moloch]

[Moloch]

[BADecker]

You conveniently forget that the people in the nativity were part of one of the foreign states of Rome. So, they were not refugees.

[Buffer Overflow]

So, the best way we can help locked-in (won't change) sodomite unbelievers, and all locked-in unbelievers, is to execute them as fast as possible.

Christianity. The religion of peace.

[BitNow]

Christianity. The religion of peace.

Peace has nothing to do with not respecting the law: the law is the law as you want to have peace, as you want to have war.


Best regards.

[BADecker]

So, the best way we can help locked-in (won't change) sodomite unbelievers, and all locked-in unbelievers, is to execute them as fast as possible.

Christianity. The religion of peace.

As usual, you have missed the wonderful point of my post you partially quoted. If sinners are LOCKED-INto unbelief, that means that they won't change. To keep them from receiving the pain of eternal punishment for more sins, shouldn't they be stopped from sinning as soon as possible? So, you tell me. What is the fastest way to keep them from sinning so that they don't get any more pain in Hell than necessary?

We Christians love all people. And we try to do the best for them. So, tell me how to do it if the way I suggested isn't the best.

[sirazimuth]

huh, i never knew morons were intelligent.
yeah too bad we had/have all these intelligent moron atheistic scientists like  Einstein, Tesla, Edison, Darwin ,Hawking De grass Tyson, Asimov, Dawkins.
and the list goes on... damn atheist scientists! they dont know shit!!

Contrary to popular belief, Einstein was not an atheist. He believed in God and once said ("God does not play dice with the universe").

get your facts straight there dude. Einstein did not believe in God.
try a  30 second google search or  wikipedia before posting that he did and making yourself look silly...

On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied  on 24 March 1954....

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

[sirazimuth]

I also don't believe in God,but that does not mean that I hate my grandmother who goes to Church.I just laugh at her. So grown up and believe in fairy tales.

If you keep on believing the fairy tail that God doesn't exist, you won't like it when God proves to you that He DOES exist.

its  spelled "tale" you phucking genius. "tail" is what my cats have that wags and protrudes out there behind just above their arse

[dippididodaday]

We Christians love all people. And we try to do the best for them. So, tell me how to do it if the way I suggested isn't the best.

This is problematic, the idea that you can speak for the collective of Christians [I know you love greatly though]. It is also problematic that you (all Christians) believe you can do anything for anyone, because you believe you are now in a state of everlasting penalty-free existence. This is an illusion that causes a lot of trouble.

[RoomBot]

I also don't believe in God,but that does not mean that I hate my grandmother who goes to Church.I just laugh at her. So grown up and believe in fairy tales.

If you keep on believing the fairy tail that God doesn't exist, you won't like it when God proves to you that He DOES exist.

its  spelled "tale" you phucking genius. "tail" is what my cats have that wags and protrudes out there behind just above their arse

its [sic] is spelled "it's"

As in "it is."  A contraction.

FTFY

(without a brutal ad hominem attack, BTW)

 

[Buffer Overflow]

So, the best way we can help locked-in (won't change) sodomite unbelievers, and all locked-in unbelievers, is to execute them as fast as possible.

Christianity. The religion of peace.

As usual, you have missed the wonderful point of my post you partially quoted. If sinners are LOCKED-INto unbelief, that means that they won't change. To keep them from receiving the pain of eternal punishment for more sins, shouldn't they be stopped from sinning as soon as possible? So, you tell me. What is the fastest way to keep them from sinning so that they don't get any more pain in Hell than necessary?

We Christians love all people. And we try to do the best for them. So, tell me how to do it if the way I suggested isn't the best.

Where it all falls down is because your beliefs are based on blind speculation, not facts. This makes your way of thinking very dangerous indeed.
Where does it all end? Once you've erradicated those you want to in the "first round", who do you "help" next? Catholics? Buddhists? Hindus?
Who get's blessed with your "help" in the "next round"?

Perhaps you should join ISIS? They've convinced themselves they can go around killing people, to "help" them, for God.

Little wonder the world has so many problems, with this sort of mentality onboard.

[BADecker]

So, the best way we can help locked-in (won't change) sodomite unbelievers, and all locked-in unbelievers, is to execute them as fast as possible.

Christianity. The religion of peace.

As usual, you have missed the wonderful point of my post you partially quoted. If sinners are LOCKED-INto unbelief, that means that they won't change. To keep them from receiving the pain of eternal punishment for more sins, shouldn't they be stopped from sinning as soon as possible? So, you tell me. What is the fastest way to keep them from sinning so that they don't get any more pain in Hell than necessary?

We Christians love all people. And we try to do the best for them. So, tell me how to do it if the way I suggested isn't the best.

Where it all falls down is because your beliefs are based on blind speculation, not facts. This makes your way of thinking very dangerous indeed.

No. It falls down with you failing to read what I said, or your failure to think, or your intentional desire to express misinterpretation about the things that you read. Notice that I said locked-in. Do you know anybody who is locked-in to NOT believing in God? If you think you do, how do you think that you know it? Did you get into the deepest depths of his heart and mind so that you could see for a fact that he will never change? Just like you don't know for an absolute fact that anybody is locked-into certain thinking and belief, neither do I or anyone else.

What does this mean? It means that there is no executing anyone for his locked-in unbelief or faith in something that is wrong. It means you have been tricked by your own desire to see evil where good is shown, that you start lambasting before understanding. It shows that you are the wicked, corrupt thing that you are speaking against. And if you were locked-into this way of thinking, the best thing that could happen to you for your best benefit, and for the benefit of the rest of the world, would be that you would die right now.

But nobody knows if you are locked-in. And God is giving you a chance to turn... over and over and over... many chances.

Where does it all end? Once you've erradicated those you want to in the "first round", who do you "help" next? Catholics? Buddhists? Hindus?
Who get's blessed with your "help" in the "next round"?

Now you are starting to think a little. Everybody dies, right? So, the idea of eradicating is already set in place, right? God is already allowing the exact thing that I am talking about. God isn't doing it. He is allowing us to do it because that's the way we are.

God has gone the next step. He has allowed us to be locked-in. But there are two things that we can be locked-into:
1. Faith in God for salvation from death to life;
2. Attempted fighting against God for eternal destruction of one's self.

You make your own choice for the forever. So does everyone else. God holds your ability to choose open for you.

Perhaps you should join ISIS? They've convinced themselves they can go around killing people, to "help" them, for God.

Little wonder the world has so many problems, with this sort of mentality onboard.

If you don't understand that I wasn't talking about actually executing people by now, you haven't read my, above, parts of this post. The fact is, you are far more into the extermination of people than I am. Go back and read what I wrote.

[TooQik]

So, the best way we can help locked-in (won't change) sodomite unbelievers, and all locked-in unbelievers, is to execute them as fast as possible.

Christianity. The religion of peace.

As usual, you have missed the wonderful point of my post you partially quoted. If sinners are LOCKED-INto unbelief, that means that they won't change. To keep them from receiving the pain of eternal punishment for more sins, shouldn't they be stopped from sinning as soon as possible? So, you tell me. What is the fastest way to keep them from sinning so that they don't get any more pain in Hell than necessary?

We Christians love all people. And we try to do the best for them. So, tell me how to do it if the way I suggested isn't the best.

Where it all falls down is because your beliefs are based on blind speculation, not facts. This makes your way of thinking very dangerous indeed.
Where does it all end? Once you've erradicated those you want to in the "first round", who do you "help" next? Catholics? Buddhists? Hindus?
Who get's blessed with your "help" in the "next round"?

Perhaps you should join ISIS? They've convinced themselves they can go around killing people, to "help" them, for God.

Little wonder the world has so many problems, with this sort of mentality onboard.

I wish all religious extremists would "help" themselves. It would make the world a much safer place.

[BADecker]

I wish all religious extremists would "help" themselves. It would make the world a much safer place.

Since all people are religious, even those people who are considered to not be extremists, are extremists in their religious aspect of non-extremism.

You haven't said the thing you thought you had. Rather, you have asked that people would become even more religious.

[Betwrong]

So, the best way we can help locked-in (won't change) sodomite unbelievers, and all locked-in unbelievers, is to execute them as fast as possible.

Christianity. The religion of peace.

I've heard somewhere that it is "Islam a religion of peace", but anyway no religion has nothing to do with peace. Even the buddhists are violent in some places, there are even terms like "Buddhism’s terrorism". So guys if you really want to be peaceful stay away from any religion and god bless you. )

[BADecker]

So, the best way we can help locked-in (won't change) sodomite unbelievers, and all locked-in unbelievers, is to execute them as fast as possible.

Christianity. The religion of peace.

I've heard somewhere that it is "Islam a religion of peace", but anyway no religion has nothing to do with peace. Even the buddhists are violent in some places, there are even terms like "Buddhism’s terrorism". So guys if you really want to be peaceful stay away from any religion and god bless you. )

God, the Guy Who blesses us, is the Guy Who set up His religion among us, when He found that we were setting up many false religions among ourselves.

Most violent among religions is atheism. Why? Atheism assures Hell for those who believe in it. Hell isn't going to be peaceful. Especially not in the way it feels for those who go there.

[RoomBot]

"...there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.

Many atheists hold that atheism is a more parsimonious worldview than theism and therefore that the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Get off your hatred-filled high horse....

[VadikZimnyayaRezina]

I see the opposite situation - religious people hate atheism. As soon as you say that you do not believe in God, so once you are trying to force the faithful to believe in their opinion

[Buffer Overflow]

So, the best way we can help locked-in (won't change) sodomite unbelievers, and all locked-in unbelievers, is to execute them as fast as possible.

Christianity. The religion of peace.

As usual, you have missed the wonderful point of my post you partially quoted. If sinners are LOCKED-INto unbelief, that means that they won't change. To keep them from receiving the pain of eternal punishment for more sins, shouldn't they be stopped from sinning as soon as possible? So, you tell me. What is the fastest way to keep them from sinning so that they don't get any more pain in Hell than necessary?

We Christians love all people. And we try to do the best for them. So, tell me how to do it if the way I suggested isn't the best.

Where it all falls down is because your beliefs are based on blind speculation, not facts. This makes your way of thinking very dangerous indeed.

Notice that I said locked-in. Do you know anybody who is locked-in to NOT believing in God? If you think you do, how do you think that you know it? Did you get into the deepest depths of his heart and mind so that you could see for a fact that he will never change? Just like you don't know for an absolute fact that anybody is locked-into certain thinking and belief, neither do I or anyone else.

It means that there is no executing anyone for his locked-in unbelief or faith in something that is wrong.

Sounds like backpedaling to me.

If it's impossible to detect who is locked-in, then why announce locked-in people need to be executed? Who decides if they are locked-in? Why locked-in and not locked-out? Is it even remotely important? Why not just ignore them? Why is locked-in unbelief wrong anyway? Again, more blind speculation on your part back up with previous blind speculation.

These are all rhetorical questions above by the way, don't bother answering. I'm not interested in listening to your sugarcoated hate.

Most violent among religions is atheism. Why? Atheism assures Hell for those who believe in it.

Yes I would agree, if Christian mythology is indeed correct.

Interesting you omitted this most vital part off the end of your statement. Which was of course was delibrate.