Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[JanVanHellsing]

. I mean, might God not be living on the other side of Jupiter? Ever been out there to check on it?

no, but I think this dude  has....


Damn!... now I wanna do some acid ...lol...

Pretty oldschool equipment you got there...I would not even go to the moon with that

[1715097915]

1715097915

[1715097915]

1715097915

[1715097915]

1715097915

[legendster]

I do not hate all religions, in a religion has its own teachings, and every religion has different beliefs and rules so atheists themselves have rules that justify every mistake in the right, and there are some unfair facts and teachings in deciding a problem, for that we have seen and heard the degree of women in the lower levels in comparison with men's degree and why should be treated like that.

Stop tailing my topics with all your shit posts.

[CoinCube]

Do you hear yourself?  You sound like an Islamist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8b3vhTO248

Apparently Richard Dawkins picked out a former Jewish Settler who has difficulty controlling his anger and converted from Judaism to fundamentalist Islam. I have difficulty imagining an easier setting to advance his particular ideology.

What is more interesting is the fact that you equate my beliefs with those of fundamentalist Islam. My statement was in support of traditional morals and social structures.

I freely admit that I reject the nihilistic idea that morals are arbitrary. I also challenge attempts to redefine reality such as the claim that biological sex is irrelevant and gender entirely a social construct.

Just so we are clear are you claiming that these positions make me equivalent to a follower of radical Islam? Or is it your position that anyone who believes in God is a dangerous fundamentalist?  

[Astargath]

I think religion has one (original) use case: "To control how people think and behave".

But in today's Internet Age, religions have too much competition from political, all the *-isms, and anti-* movements.

The benefits of religious brainwashing (law abiding citizens) are overshadowed by all the negatives (regressive moral values,
outdated social structures and rejection of the scientific method as an efficient way to learn how the world works).

The the "use case" of religion is to rectify humanity which includes rectifying how people think and behave.

Personally I will keep my "regressive moral values", and my "outdated social structures".

If teenagers were taught about science, evolution and religion at the same time without any external influence from their family, do you they would believe in talking snakes, magic and all sorts of miracles or science? I think they would for sure pick science, the only reason that we have so many religious people around the world is indoctrination from very early age.

[BADecker]

I think religion has one (original) use case: "To control how people think and behave".

But in today's Internet Age, religions have too much competition from political, all the *-isms, and anti-* movements.

The benefits of religious brainwashing (law abiding citizens) are overshadowed by all the negatives (regressive moral values,
outdated social structures and rejection of the scientific method as an efficient way to learn how the world works).

The the "use case" of religion is to rectify humanity which includes rectifying how people think and behave.

Personally I will keep my "regressive moral values", and my "outdated social structures".

If teenagers were taught about science, evolution and religion at the same time without any external influence from their family, do you they would believe in talking snakes, magic and all sorts of miracles or science? I think they would for sure pick science, the only reason that we have so many religious people around the world is indoctrination from very early age.

The thing you are posting could be classified as the religion of ignorant atheism vs. the religion of observed history.

[Astargath]

I think religion has one (original) use case: "To control how people think and behave".

But in today's Internet Age, religions have too much competition from political, all the *-isms, and anti-* movements.

The benefits of religious brainwashing (law abiding citizens) are overshadowed by all the negatives (regressive moral values,
outdated social structures and rejection of the scientific method as an efficient way to learn how the world works).

The the "use case" of religion is to rectify humanity which includes rectifying how people think and behave.

Personally I will keep my "regressive moral values", and my "outdated social structures".

If teenagers were taught about science, evolution and religion at the same time without any external influence from their family, do you they would believe in talking snakes, magic and all sorts of miracles or science? I think they would for sure pick science, the only reason that we have so many religious people around the world is indoctrination from very early age.

The thing you are posting could be classified as the religion of ignorant atheism vs. the religion of observed history.

Claimed observed history you mean? There are many claims of that, that's why we have thousands of religions, they all claim they are the real one and what they observed is the truth. You have a book which says people saw god, what is the evidence that they indeed saw god?

[Astargath]

Do you hear yourself?  You sound like an Islamist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8b3vhTO248

Apparently Richard Dawkins picked out a former Jewish Settler who has difficulty controlling his anger and converted from Judaism to fundamentalist Islam. I have difficulty imagining an easier setting to advance his particular ideology.

What is more interesting is the fact that you equate my beliefs with those of fundamentalist Islam. My statement was in support of traditional morals and social structures.

I freely admit that I reject the nihilistic idea that morals are arbitrary. I also challenge attempts to redefine reality such as the claim that biological sex is irrelevant and gender entirely a social construct.

Just so we are clear are you claiming that these positions make me equivalent to a follower of radical Islam? Or is it your position that anyone who believes in God is a dangerous fundamentalist?  

It is a slippery slope to fundamentalism.

Traditional social structures?  Do you agree with

Corinthians 14:34
Timothy 2:12
Colossians 3:18
Ephesians 5:22-33
Corinthians 11:3

Simple yes or no, please.

BTW, gender type is biological, not a social construct.  We don't see genderfluid mammals in nature.  We do see homosexual behaviors in nature.

Gender identity is different.  This probably only applies to humans.  People identify themselves as so and so.

Societies change over time, so do social structures.  It would be nice if your God updated your sacred text once in a while LOL.
But he cannot because he is dead!!!

In all western countries, your Bronze Age morals are against the law.  So don't tell me you base your morals on the Bible or Quran.
When was the last time you killed a gay person or someone who works on Saturday?

The only reason we know some texts in the bible are immoral and wrong is because we have indeed evolved as a society. That's also why a lot of religious preachers now try to defend why the bible includes slavery for example just like they need to make up shit in order to say that the bible does not say the earth is flat when it does indeed suggest it.

[BADecker]

I think religion has one (original) use case: "To control how people think and behave".

But in today's Internet Age, religions have too much competition from political, all the *-isms, and anti-* movements.

The benefits of religious brainwashing (law abiding citizens) are overshadowed by all the negatives (regressive moral values,
outdated social structures and rejection of the scientific method as an efficient way to learn how the world works).

The the "use case" of religion is to rectify humanity which includes rectifying how people think and behave.

Personally I will keep my "regressive moral values", and my "outdated social structures".

If teenagers were taught about science, evolution and religion at the same time without any external influence from their family, do you they would believe in talking snakes, magic and all sorts of miracles or science? I think they would for sure pick science, the only reason that we have so many religious people around the world is indoctrination from very early age.

The thing you are posting could be classified as the religion of ignorant atheism vs. the religion of observed history.

Claimed observed history you mean? There are many claims of that, that's why we have thousands of religions, they all claim they are the real one and what they observed is the truth. You have a book which says people saw god, what is the evidence that they indeed saw god?

Again, the strong tradition of Israel is proof of their accuracy in recording their eye witness history.

[CoinCube]

It is a slippery slope to fundamentalism.

Traditional social structures?  Do you agree with

Corinthians 14:34
Timothy 2:12
Colossians 3:18
Ephesians 5:22-33
Corinthians 11:3

Simple yes or no, please.
...

Those are certainly interesting passages. However, it is a mistake to look at them or try to understand them in isolation. For any belief system to be true it must be true in it's entirety.

I talked about this in my recent post on The Coherence Theory of Truth

You cite Corinthians so we are discussing Christianity. The task of the Christian philosopher is to understand and interpret passages such as the ones you highlight without invalidating other parts of the Bible. They must be understood not in isolation but within the the larger framework that includes things like Matthew 22:36-40 which according to the Bible is the supreme overarching truth from which others are derived.

The typical lazy reply to this is that it cannot be done, that the text is contradictory and cannot be integrated into a coherent philosophy of life. I think that is the simpletons answer one that springs from a poor grasp of human nature and human history.

You fear God is a slippery slope to fundamentalism. I disagree and would argue history proves you wrong.

My fear is different then yours. I fear that the road ahead without God leads inevitably to tyranny. I highlighted my reasons for this in theymos's recent thread on Anacyclosis
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3341237.0

[Astargath]

I think religion has one (original) use case: "To control how people think and behave".

But in today's Internet Age, religions have too much competition from political, all the *-isms, and anti-* movements.

The benefits of religious brainwashing (law abiding citizens) are overshadowed by all the negatives (regressive moral values,
outdated social structures and rejection of the scientific method as an efficient way to learn how the world works).

The the "use case" of religion is to rectify humanity which includes rectifying how people think and behave.

Personally I will keep my "regressive moral values", and my "outdated social structures".

If teenagers were taught about science, evolution and religion at the same time without any external influence from their family, do you they would believe in talking snakes, magic and all sorts of miracles or science? I think they would for sure pick science, the only reason that we have so many religious people around the world is indoctrination from very early age.

The thing you are posting could be classified as the religion of ignorant atheism vs. the religion of observed history.

Claimed observed history you mean? There are many claims of that, that's why we have thousands of religions, they all claim they are the real one and what they observed is the truth. You have a book which says people saw god, what is the evidence that they indeed saw god?

Again, the strong tradition of Israel is proof of their accuracy in recording their eye witness history.

No it isn't. Every claim needs its own evidence. If someone predicts something and it turns out to be true, it doesn't mean everything he says it's true. Every claim has to be proved. Again you have no proof.

[CoinCube]

...
This ideology is evil at its core.

Secular, democratic system is the best system for preventing dictatorships and slaughter of the opposition.

Today, just like in the past, any state where religion runs the show leads to genocide of minorities, and non-religious citizenry.

Again your view here simply does not reflect an accurate grasp of history. Just look at the history the 20th century. The leading ideological cause of death was not religion but Communism. Fascism did it best to take the top spot but ultimately it only gets a participation trophy.

Communism Killed 94M in 20th Century, Feels Need to Kill Again
https://reason.com/blog/2013/03/13/communism-killed-94m-in-20th-century

A secular democracy is a good system if and only if the individuals who participate are by and large moral and virtuous. If they are not it slowly degenerates into the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of whoever bribes/coerces the majority.

A belief in God among the populace is the linchpin that secures the morality of the people and thus the freedom and success of the secular democracy.

Where the arguments against religious faith usually go astray is that they attempt to introduce an arbitrary and illogical division between faith in religion and faith in other things. They then attempt to argue against religion while totally ignoring "other faith".

Humans don't live in a vacuum. We cannot like a computer shut ourselves off and stop. We are all ongoing and actively developing entities. Rejecting a faith is never a simple matter of removing a set of beliefs. It is ALWAYS a replacement of one religion with another or if you prefer a replacement of one set of core beliefs with another. These new beliefs whatever they may be are also ultimately just another faith. The logical result of gutting ones foundational principles without accepting a replacement ideology is incoherence and self-contradiction.

If you believe I am biased and reject this conclusion maybe you will give it more weight when coming from others with more historical clout.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin

“Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend upon their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.” - James Madison

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” - George Washington

In regards to some of your tangential points.

In Amish communities, women/girls are work slaves, have to be quiet and obey men.  I bet you the verses I listed are recited during Sunday's mass to keep them in line.

I suspect most Amish women would by and large be quite dismissive of your view of them as work slaves. From everything I have read the Amish live simple but ultimately happy lives. The Amish are also not slaves or under coercion they are free to leave their faith at any time. Some leave about 5-10% most choose to stay.

Why Amish Kids Are Happier than Yours
http://time.com/3687995/why-amish-kids-are-happier-than-yours/

Any ideology where you cannot question the core tenets leads to tyranny.

In this we agree

[CoinCube]

...
You have been indoctrinated into believing that if you don't believe into some God you are automatically destined to be an immoral person.  I don't know where you got your idea.  Church?

People are inherently good or bad, regardless of their religion or irreligion.

I am telling you the Bronze Age morals and world view is not the way to go forward.  If it was not for the secular movement, Christians would be burning scientists, gays and atheists at the stake.

I can assure you I have not been indoctrinated. I started from a position of agnosticism and build up my worldview step by step starting from a deep examination of my basic assertions. My conclusions do not come from dogma but logical deduction. I have also outlined my beliefs and the logic I used to reach them in some detail. See: Empiric Argument for God.

I am not a member of any religious denomination. For the past 20 years I was a strong agnostic abandoning that position only after great consideration once I realized it was untenable.

I understand your fear of fundamentalism. It is valid and has merit. What you seem to be missing is the fact that fundamentalist extremism has nothing to do with God. Extreme fundamentalism follows from the false human assertion that my ideology represents a perfect understanding of truth and all differing ideologies are therefore worthy only of suppression and extermination.

The Nazi's were darwinian fundamentalist the Communist utopian fundamentalist. The world today is full of fundamentalist of all stripes some associated with traditional organized religions others associated with secular causes. Yes fundamentalism can be very dangerous but if you think it is an organized religion problem you are mistaken. Extreme fundamentalism is a widespread human problem and taking God out of the equation simply makes the problem worse.

You argue that rejection of God is the path forward. My response is that you are utterly failing to appreciate the dire hazards of that road. Don't take my word for it. Learn from Fredrick Nietzsche a fellow atheist and one of the most devastating critics of institution Christianity that ever lived.

See:
Nietzsche and Christianity
and
Nietzsche and Nihilism

[CoinCube]

Just because our universe is incomplete (not all truths can be proven mathematically)... is not a proof of God.  I think people jump the gun on the incompleteness theorem.

Same argument as because the universe was created, and we don't know how and why it was created, there must be something out there that created it.

You are projecting your desires (of filling in the gaps in knowledge) on the outcome of your deduction.  Don't feel bad, Newton did it, and many other smart people after him.  Still the reasoning is wrong, regardless of who proclaims it.

I agree with you on the fundamentalism.  You don't need religion for that.
 

I never claimed to prove God. The incompleteness theorem which is part #1 of my Empiric Argument for God is not proof of God.

Instead it is proof that there are things in this universe that can never be proven yet are true. From this fact we must conclude that our inability to prove a truth is not by itself sufficient grounds not accept it. Ultimately all knowledge traces back to assumed axioms.

How then do we determine if an unprovable axiom is true?
Is God such an axiom True yet unprovable?

To answer these questions we must develop a coherent theory of truth. That is part #2 of my argument.

I don't claim to have a proof of God. Personally I think that is impossible. What I have shown is that it is logical to believe in God even if we cannot now or ever prove his existence.

You state that I am projecting my desires (filling in the gaps in my knowledge) with the outcome of my deduction. To this charge I will give an honest answer.

That is a logical conclusion to draw only IF one adopts an entirely different worldview then I and ASSUME other "truths".

For no matter what worldview you use to launch your critique you are guilty of the same projection. At the bottom of your worldview whatever that may be lies at least one and possibly many "truths" that at best cannot be proven and at worst are false and self-contradictory.

Faith cannot be avoided. We can deny we have it and pretend it does not exist but only at the cost of deluding ourselves. In the worst case situation we are not even consciously aware of our a priori truths. Then we are blind to our own beliefs.

At the end of the day we choose who we are.

[Astargath]

Just because our universe is incomplete (not all truths can be proven mathematically)... is not a proof of God.  I think people jump the gun on the incompleteness theorem.

Same argument as because the universe was created, and we don't know how and why it was created, there must be something out there that created it.

You are projecting your desires (of filling in the gaps in knowledge) on the outcome of your deduction.  Don't feel bad, Newton did it, and many other smart people after him.  Still the reasoning is wrong, regardless of who proclaims it.

I agree with you on the fundamentalism.  You don't need religion for that.
 

I never claimed to prove God. The incompleteness theorem which is part #1 of my Empiric Argument for God is not proof of God.

Instead it is proof that there are things in this universe that can never be proven yet are true. From this fact we must conclude that our inability to prove a truth is not by itself sufficient grounds not accept it. Ultimately all knowledge traces back to assumed axioms.

How then do we determine if an unprovable axiom is true?
Is God such an axiom True yet unprovable?

To answer these questions we must develop a coherent theory of truth. That is part #2 of my argument.

I don't claim to have a proof of God. Personally I think that is impossible. What I have shown is that it is logical to believe in God even if we cannot now or ever prove his existence.

You state that I am projecting my desires (filling in the gaps in my knowledge) with the outcome of my deduction. To this charge I will give an honest answer.

That is a logical conclusion to draw only IF one adopts an entirely different worldview then I and ASSUME other "truths".

For no matter what worldview you use to launch your critique you are guilty of the same projection. At the bottom of your worldview whatever that may be lies at least one and possibly many "truths" that at best cannot be proven and at worst are false and self-contradictory.

Faith cannot be avoided. We can deny we have it and pretend it does not exist but only at the cost of deluding ourselves. In the worst case situation we are not even consciously aware of our a priori truths. Then we are blind to our own beliefs.

At the end of the day we choose who we are.

Again with this shit? You and the guy who wrote the article are using the incompleteness theorem wrong. I already discussed this with you, you can't apply the theorem to anything you like. There is even a book written specifically talking about how people are applying the theorem in the wrong ways.

''Real world situations usually display an amazing degree of complexity, unlike basic statements of arithmetic.

Unfortunately, most attempts to extend Gödel's theorems outside of math end up mired in these types of problems. Because these theorems were developed particular to say something about number theory (more broadly, formal systems)''

''Instead it is proof that there are things in this universe that can never be proven yet are true'' It is not proof of that either.

[CoinCube]

We already have a scientific method that allows us to discover objective truths.

Indeed the scientific method is a wonderful thing. What you fail to appreciate, however, is that the scientific method also rests upon unprovable assumptions.

Its discoveries are not objective truth but conditional truth and dependent on the fundamental a priori assumptions of science.

What are these assumptions? I highlighted several of them in a recent post.

Metaphysical Foundation of Science:
 
✧ The external world is real and knowable.
✧ Nature itself is not divine. It is an object worthy of study, not worship.
✧ The universe is orderly. There is uniformity in nature that allows us to observe past phenomena and to understand and predict future occurrences.
✧ Our minds and senses are capable of accurately observing and understanding the world.

These assumed truths are so deeply ingrained in us now we have difficulty even recognizing them as assumptions but they are necessary for science to exist.

If you don't believe the assumptions science becomes impossible for you. The progress and maintenance of scientific achievement requires that these assumptions be accepted and propagated at least by an educated elite.

The same situation applies to the apriori Truth of God which rests at the foundation of western culture. Undermine the assumption and the whole society starts to wobble.

This is what Nietzsche foresaw when he announced "God is dead" in 1882. Nietzsche predicted drastic consequences as a result. He predicted millions would die in the 20th century in wars of extremist ideologies. Peterson describes these ideologies as parasites that act on a damaged religious substructure.

Nietzsche also predicted that it would not be until the 21st century that we would be forced to acknowledge the crisis of nihilism. These predictions given in 1882 are an intellectual tour de force.

Believing blindly without contemplation still works for some but that blanket of protection is gradually being pulled away. Going forward it will increasingly be necessary to fully define oneself down to your core metaphysical truths. Unless you can look into the abyss of nihilism and reject it with certainty the abyss will sooner or later pull you in.

The rest of your comments indicate to me that you simply do not follow my arguments so I see little point in proceeding much further.

I challenge your position as ultimately illogical and untrue. You have leveled the same charge at me. I have laid out my logic and reasoning for you in some detail and you have forcefully stated your beliefs.

At this point we will have to let the readers of this thread decide for themselves.
 

[CoinCube]

Metaphysical Foundation of Science:
 
✧ The external world is real and knowable.

You are right.  I do not share the same "metaphysical, assumed truths" you listed above.

Indeed if you deny the existence of objective truth altogether. The first of the metaphysical assumption of science above then you are in the orbit of a very different belief system.

Definition of Nihilism
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nihilism

A : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless

B : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

I cannot disprove nihilism only point the the various reasons it is a poor choice.

If you have time I recommend the following essay on this topic by Bruce Charlton.

Metaphysical Attitudes

Take Care

[Astargath]

We already have a scientific method that allows us to discover objective truths.

Indeed the scientific method is a wonderful thing. What you fail to appreciate, however, is that the scientific method also rests upon unprovable assumptions.

Its discoveries are not objective truth but conditional truth and dependent on the fundamental a priori assumptions of science.

What are these assumptions? I highlighted several of them in a recent post.

Metaphysical Foundation of Science:
 
✧ The external world is real and knowable.
✧ Nature itself is not divine. It is an object worthy of study, not worship.
✧ The universe is orderly. There is uniformity in nature that allows us to observe past phenomena and to understand and predict future occurrences.
✧ Our minds and senses are capable of accurately observing and understanding the world.

These assumed truths are so deeply ingrained in us now we have difficulty even recognizing them as assumptions but they are necessary for science to exist.

If you don't believe the assumptions science becomes impossible for you. The progress and maintenance of scientific achievement requires that these assumptions be accepted and propagated at least by an educated elite.

The same situation applies to the apriori Truth of God which rests at the foundation of western culture. Undermine the assumption and the whole society starts to wobble.

This is what Nietzsche foresaw when he announced "God is dead" in 1882. Nietzsche predicted drastic consequences as a result. He predicted millions would die in the 20th century in wars of extremist ideologies. Peterson describes these ideologies as parasites that act on a damaged religious substructure.

Nietzsche also predicted that it would not be until the 21st century that we would be forced to acknowledge the crisis of nihilism. These predictions given in 1882 are an intellectual tour de force.

Believing blindly without contemplation still works for some but that blanket of protection is gradually being pulled away. Going forward it will increasingly be necessary to fully define oneself down to your core metaphysical truths. Unless you can look into the abyss of nihilism and reject it with certainty the abyss will sooner or later pull you in.

The rest of your comments indicate to me that you simply do not follow my arguments so I see little point in proceeding much further.

I challenge your position as ultimately illogical and untrue. You have leveled the same charge at me. I have laid out my logic and reasoning for you in some detail and you have forcefully stated your beliefs.

At this point we will have to let the readers of this thread decide for themselves.
 

Science works, your metaphysical bullshit pseudo science doesn't. Science keeps bringing results meanwhile religion does nothing. Ok, sometimes they try to disrupt science like with stem cells.

[Ekaterina32]

The main argument common to various directions of atheism is that they are guided by reason and think independently, taking decisions on worldview issues. As far as this argument is fair, the question is separate, because, of course, there are also atheists, who are more pragmatic than the average believer, and self-thinking believers.

Another common argument in favor of atheism is religious wars. Ie, they say, atheism does not lead to religious wars as a religion. And much more ...

[CoinCube]

Again with this shit? You and the guy who wrote the article are using the incompleteness theorem wrong. I already discussed this with you...

We indeed did debate this topic. We reduced the argument down to its very basic assumptions which you were unable to refute. You lost that debate though your ideology will likely never allow you to see that.

If you need to review here is a good place to look. My own argument is less ambitious then that of Perry Marshall and depends only on the first two assumptions.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24814610#msg24814610

Science works, your metaphysical bullshit pseudo science doesn't. Science keeps bringing results meanwhile religion does nothing. Ok, sometimes they try to disrupt science like with stem cells.

I replied to this here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg35917300#msg35917300

[BADecker]

The main argument common to various directions of atheism is that they are guided by reason and think independently, taking decisions on worldview issues. As far as this argument is fair, the question is separate, because, of course, there are also atheists, who are more pragmatic than the average believer, and self-thinking believers.

Another common argument in favor of atheism is religious wars. Ie, they say, atheism does not lead to religious wars as a religion. And much more ...

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Temujin, many others...

Of course these guys looked at formal religion. But most (if not all) of them set both theism and non-theism formal religion aside for war and slaughter of many millions. So, the religion of informal (and possibly formal) atheism is has killed way more than the formal religions of theism and non-theism.