Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[BADecker]

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 absolute but conditional truths and dependent 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.
 

You are right.  I do not share the same "metaphysical, assumed truths" you listed above.  Didn't the universe start with an explosion? - We don't know that the universe started with an explosion. No proof for it. No scientific proof for it. All the evidence can be applied to other things better, just like evolution evidence can be applied to other things better than it can be applied to evolution.

No offence, but I think you are losing your mind injecting these metaphysical "truths" into your logic. - Metaphysics is simply way beyond us, scientifically, at present. There is science that is examining it and getting some answers.

Philosophy is not science and as such it is not a good field for exploring and learning about the universe. - Philosophy often is the examination of the sciences that are way beyond what we scientifically know at present. We "feel" some of the greater and deeper science. Philosophy tries to examine it without our science, because our science is so far behind, but we want answers anyway, so we philosophize.

Take care.

[BADecker]

Yes, but you should still not choose believing in supernatural.  Otherwise you are just being delusional.

Choosing to believe the supernatural is just like choosing to NOT believe it. Why? Because we have no clue about how the universe started, scientifically. We don't know that it started without the supernatural.

Before Hawking died, he made a final observation about Big Bang. He essentially said that whatever caused it was something that was outside of anything we can understand by physical observation of the universe. He didn't say the word supernatural. But that is exactly what he was implying. Google "Hawking's final big bang observation."

Since we are so backward, presently, regarding science, we don't know that the supernatural doesn't exist all around us all the time, right now.

[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.

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.

But when you have a nation of people who are known for respecting their genealogy lines so extremely well, that they write down their lines to keep their nation pure for God, the whole nation is proof for the things they write down. such a nation is Israel. On top of that, their history is evidence that the things that they wrote were predictions of what would happen to them if they acted this way or that. Such is great proof.

Just because you haven't studied it or don't want to study it, shows that you are simply picking and choosing the religion you want to follow... the religion of God, or the religion of no God.

[Kuja29]

I don't think that atheists are religion haters, they just dont agreea with the fact  of a supreme beeing that made everything and  that watch's allover, i think its mostly like see and believe for atheists but they do believe in God, my opinion tho, i might be wrong !!  I think most of us are atheists and we dont realize ( most of us are yeah i believe in God and im afraid ) but in these days  no one actualy is like an adept or religion

[BADecker]

I don't think that atheists are religion haters, they just dont agreea with the fact  of a supreme beeing that made everything and  that watch's allover, i think its mostly like see and believe for atheists but they do believe in God, my opinion tho, i might be wrong !!  I think most of us are atheists and we dont realize ( most of us are yeah i believe in God and im afraid ) but in these days  no one actualy is like an adept or religion

You are close. I haven't been saying it. I have been waiting for atheists to say it. Here it is. Like atheists don't have the strength to believe that God doesn't exist, even so theists don't really have the strength to believe that God exists. The difference is that God strengthens the faith of the theists so that they believe, but God denies the strength of the atheists so that they can't believe against Him. The best the atheists can do is lie and say that they are atheists.

[Astargath]

I don't think that atheists are religion haters, they just dont agreea with the fact  of a supreme beeing that made everything and  that watch's allover, i think its mostly like see and believe for atheists but they do believe in God, my opinion tho, i might be wrong !!  I think most of us are atheists and we dont realize ( most of us are yeah i believe in God and im afraid ) but in these days  no one actualy is like an adept or religion

You are close. I haven't been saying it. I have been waiting for atheists to say it. Here it is. Like atheists don't have the strength to believe that God doesn't exist, even so theists don't really have the strength to believe that God exists. The difference is that God strengthens the faith of the theists so that they believe, but God denies the strength of the atheists so that they can't believe against Him. The best the atheists can do is lie and say that they are atheists.

If that were true, I wouldn't be an atheist now because I was a believer and god would have strengthened my faith in him but he didn't.

[CoinCube]

Philosophy is not science and as such it is not a good field for exploring and learning about the universe.

- Philosophy often is the examination of the sciences that are way beyond what we scientifically know at present. We "feel" some of the greater and deeper science. Philosophy tries to examine it without our science, because our science is so far behind, but we want (need) answers anyway, so we philosophize.

Take care.

This is an excellent description of philosophy.

[Astargath]

Philosophy is not science and as such it is not a good field for exploring and learning about the universe.

- Philosophy often is the examination of the sciences that are way beyond what we scientifically know at present. We "feel" some of the greater and deeper science. Philosophy tries to examine it without our science, because our science is so far behind, but we want (need) answers anyway, so we philosophize.

Take care.

This is an excellent description of philosophy.

The only problem is that there is no method to confirm anything a philosopher might say, as far as I know, which means we would have to trust them and they could be wrong all the time.

[TooQik]

The only problem is that there is no method to confirm anything a philosopher might say, as far as I know, which means we would have to trust them and they could be wrong all the time.

Ironically you can say the same thing about any religion.  

[BADecker]

The only problem is that there is no method to confirm anything a philosopher might say, as far as I know, which means we would have to trust them and they could be wrong all the time.

Ironically you can say the same thing about any religion.  

...Especially the religion of atheism.

Philosophy is often trial and error, same as science.

Since religion is how you live, experience eliminates some of the trial and error of life in the future.

[doodle07]

If they hate religion, they hate themselves too because Atheists are believers of Atheism, a religion.
Maybe the right question should be, "Why do Atheists hate Christ?"

[TooQik]

The only problem is that there is no method to confirm anything a philosopher might say, as far as I know, which means we would have to trust them and they could be wrong all the time.

Ironically you can say the same thing about any religion.  

...Especially the religion of atheism.

Philosophy is often trial and error, same as science.

Since religion is how you live, experience eliminates some of the trial and error of life in the future.

Only religious people say atheism is a religion, it's not. It's simply a non-belief in supreme entities. That is the single thing all atheists share.

Philosophy is merely an outlook on life, nothing more. It can be shaped by anything, be it fact or fiction.

[CoinCube]

Only religious people say atheism is a religion, it's not. It's simply a non-belief in supreme entities. That is the single thing all atheists share.

Actually, it is quite a bit more then that. It is a challenge to the a prior claim of a competing belief system.

Atheism is always accompanied by an often unstated supplementary set of assumptions or faith. The characterization of it as a religion is defensible on logical grounds.  

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.

Take the hardcore nihilist. If you push him to define and defend his beliefs you will usually after some digging drill down into something like Nihilism = True or "The entirety of the universe including the creation of the universe is random." They can't prove this they simply take it on faith.  It is the core foundation of nihilism. The rock or soggy sand of nihilism if you will.

As I personally lack the wisdom to disprove nihilism the best I can do is point to the dangers in the faith direction of nihilism and hold up an alternative. Nihilism ultimately is based in a priori faith.

The nihilist are honest in their arguments and I respect them. They reject faith in God while simultaneously outlining and defining the faith they are basing their attacks from and advocating as a replacement. Most of the Atheist are far less honest. These illogical or dishonest arguments try to limit the conversation to simple attacks on religion without any attempt to define the belief structure they are using as an alternative. These attacks usually go something like "I just don't believe in your flying spaghetti monster and don't want to talk about what I do believe in."  These types of arguments are childish and logically unsound noise.

Questioning one's faith is ultimately a good thing. We need to be introspective and examine what we really believe in and why. If we don't we will never know if we have structured our faith on something solid or something unsound.

[TooQik]

Only religious people say atheism is a religion, it's not. It's simply a non-belief in supreme entities. That is the single thing all atheists share.

Actually, it is quite a bit more then that. It is a challenge to the a prior claim of a competing belief system.

Atheism is always accompanied by an often unstated supplementary set of assumptions or faith. The characterization of it as a religion is defensible on logical grounds.  

Again, only religious people feel the need to categorise atheism as a religion when the only thing that makes someone an atheist is their non-belief of a supreme entity.

There are no defined set of rules that atheists have to live by, nor specific places, people or entities they have to worship, nor things they have to believe for whatever reason, so there are none of the defining elements to make atheism a religion.

If I, an atheist, were to wake up tomorrow and decided that I now believe in the presence of a supreme entity, would that mean I now instantly have to follow a particular set of rules that I have to live my life by? If so, which religion have I instantly become to know what rules I should be following? And if my religion is suddenly dictated by which entity I believe in, what would happen if I believe in more than a single supreme entity?

My point is that you can both believe or not believe in a supreme entity and still not have a religion. It's only narrow mindedness that creates the need to categorise everyone into a religion for reasons that I purely feel are self serving.

[Vencas1]

 Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

(quotes from www.atheists.org)

[CoinCube]

https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-is-difference-between-science-and.html?m=1

Again, only religious people feel the need to categorise atheism as a religion when the only thing that makes someone an atheist is their non-belief of a supreme entity.

There are no defined set of rules that atheists have to live by, nor specific places, people or entities they have to worship, nor things they have to believe for whatever reason, so there are none of the defining elements to make atheism a religion.

If I, an atheist, were to wake up tomorrow and decided that I now believe in the presence of a supreme entity, would that mean I now instantly have to follow a particular set of rules that I have to live my life by? If so, which religion have I instantly become to know what rules I should be following? And if my religion is suddenly dictated by which entity I believe in, what would happen if I believe in more than a single supreme entity?

My point is that you can both believe or not believe in a supreme entity and still not have a religion. It's only narrow mindedness that creates the need to categorise everyone into a religion for reasons that I purely feel are self serving.

Ok fair enough. According to your definition of religion Atheism is not a religion.

However, according to your definition of religion I am also not religious. I believe in God but am not a member of any formal religion I find both Christianity and Judaism very interesting and give deep consideration to their views but am not a member of either.

Yet in the Health and Religion thread I have been accused of being religious even a fundamentalist several times. So you are saying it is only the narrow mindedness of the Atheists in that thread that causes them to categorize me in this way? They do so for reasons that are purely self serving?

I think your definition of religion is too narrow in that it is not very useful or practical. I use a definition that is much broader and more functional.

I define religion as anything an individual structures their life around either consciously or unconsciously. Thus I consider things like Communism, Nazism (Fascist Darwinian Nationalism), and Nihilism religions if they are honestly embraced by the individual as overarching truth. I agree with BADecker that a very broad classification religion is more representative of reality.

Most people believe what they do because they were taught that way not because of an introspective search for the truth. This is true of a huge swath of humanity whether their religion is centered on God or centered on something else. It is one of our many major flaws a fundamental and deep lack of reflection.

The rise of nihilism in modern times is largely due to the fact that we are reaching the point in our development where this lack of reflection is becoming less and less of an option. Unlike in simpler times we can no longer ignore the question and blindly embrace the beliefs of our colleges and parents. We are increasingly forced to confront challenges to our views and thus actively define who we are.

[Astargath]

https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-is-difference-between-science-and.html?m=1

Again, only religious people feel the need to categorise atheism as a religion when the only thing that makes someone an atheist is their non-belief of a supreme entity.

There are no defined set of rules that atheists have to live by, nor specific places, people or entities they have to worship, nor things they have to believe for whatever reason, so there are none of the defining elements to make atheism a religion.

If I, an atheist, were to wake up tomorrow and decided that I now believe in the presence of a supreme entity, would that mean I now instantly have to follow a particular set of rules that I have to live my life by? If so, which religion have I instantly become to know what rules I should be following? And if my religion is suddenly dictated by which entity I believe in, what would happen if I believe in more than a single supreme entity?

My point is that you can both believe or not believe in a supreme entity and still not have a religion. It's only narrow mindedness that creates the need to categorise everyone into a religion for reasons that I purely feel are self serving.

Ok fair enough. According to your definition of religion Atheism is not a religion.

However, according to your definition of religion I am also not religious. I believe in God but am not a member of any formal religion I find both Christianity and Judaism very interesting and give deep consideration to their views but am not a member of either.

Yet in the Health and Religion thread I have been accused of being religious even a fundamentalist several times. So you are saying it is only the narrow mindedness of the Atheists in that thread that causes them to categorize me in this way? They do so for reasons that are purely self serving?

I think your definition of religion is too narrow in that it is not very useful or practical. I use a definition that is much broader and more functional.

I define religion as anything an individual structures their life around either consciously or unconsciously. Thus I consider things like Communism, Nazism (Fascist Darwinian Nationalism), and Nihilism religions if they are honestly embraced by the individual as overarching truth. I agree with BADecker that a very broad classification religion is more representative of reality.

Most people believe what they do because they were taught that way not because of an introspective search for the truth. This is true of a huge swath of humanity whether their religion is centered on God or centered on something else. It is one of our many major flaws a fundamental and deep lack of reflection.

The rise of nihilism in modern times is largely due to the fact that we are reaching the point in our development where this lack of reflection is becoming less and less of an option. Unlike in simpler times we can no longer ignore the question and blindly embrace the beliefs of our colleges and parents. We are increasingly forced to confront challenges to our views and thus actively define who we are.

Religion is still garbage, though. If religion taught morals then people wouldn't complain about slavery or rape that you can read on the bible, if those were the supreme morals then we would still have slaves and allow rape, wouldn't we?

[TooQik]

https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-is-difference-between-science-and.html?m=1

Ok fair enough. According to your definition of religion Atheism is not a religion.

However, according to your definition of religion I am also not religious. I believe in God but am not a member of any formal religion I find both Christianity and Judaism very interesting and give deep consideration to their views but am not a member of either.

Yet in the Health and Religion thread I have been accused of being religious even a fundamentalist several times. So you are saying it is only the narrow mindedness of the Atheists in that thread that causes them to categorize me in this way? They do so for reasons that are purely self serving?

I think your definition of religion is too narrow in that it is not very useful or practical. I use a definition that is much broader and more functional.

I define religion as anything an individual structures their life around either consciously or unconsciously. Thus I consider things like Communism, Nazism (Fascist Darwinian Nationalism), and Nihilism religions if they are honestly embraced by the individual as overarching truth. I agree with BADecker that a very broad classification religion is more representative of reality.

Most people believe what they do because they were taught that way not because of an introspective search for the truth. This is true of a huge swath of humanity whether their religion is centered on God or centered on something else. It is one of our many major flaws a fundamental and deep lack of reflection.

The rise of nihilism in modern times is largely due to the fact that we are reaching the point in our development where this lack of reflection is becoming less and less of an option. Unlike in simpler times we can no longer ignore the question and blindly embrace the beliefs of our colleges and parents. We are increasingly forced to confront challenges to our views and thus actively define who we are.

While you find my definition of religion too narrow, I find your definition too broad.

Your definition encompasses each and every single factor an individual will live their life by, whether by choice or not, thus you're effectively defining the act of being alive as being involved in a religion.

My definition of religion requires the individual to worship an entity, be it supreme or human, and to live their lives governed by the rules that this entity defines or dictates.

Your point about your believing in God but not being a member of a formal religion aligns with my definition of not being religious. If any individual accused you of being religious without cause it would be self serving, regardless of how they identify with their own beliefs. By categorising you it allows them to stereo type and debate you based on that stereo type.

The issue you have though is that by your own definition you are religious, so any accusations are justified. The problem now is that because you don't identify with any particular religion the discussion is doomed to fall into disarray as there is no common ground of understanding around which to debate. The question now becomes, if you really are religious, which religion do you follow? If you can't answer that, then you're not religious.

[BADecker]

Only religious people say atheism is a religion, it's not. It's simply a non-belief in supreme entities. That is the single thing all atheists share.

Actually, it is quite a bit more then that. It is a challenge to the a prior claim of a competing belief system.

Atheism is always accompanied by an often unstated supplementary set of assumptions or faith. The characterization of it as a religion is defensible on logical grounds.  

Again, only religious people feel the need to categorise atheism as a religion when the only thing that makes someone an atheist is their non-belief of a supreme entity.

There are no defined set of rules that atheists have to live by, nor specific places, people or entities they have to worship, nor things they have to believe for whatever reason, so there are none of the defining elements to make atheism a religion.

If I, an atheist, were to wake up tomorrow and decided that I now believe in the presence of a supreme entity, would that mean I now instantly have to follow a particular set of rules that I have to live my life by? If so, which religion have I instantly become to know what rules I should be following? And if my religion is suddenly dictated by which entity I believe in, what would happen if I believe in more than a single supreme entity?

My point is that you can both believe or not believe in a supreme entity and still not have a religion. It's only narrow mindedness that creates the need to categorise everyone into a religion for reasons that I purely feel are self serving.

There is only one reason why you are an atheist... only one. Because you say it. That's all. Not because you practice atheism. Not because you believe you are an atheist.

Check out #6 of religion at Dictionary.com - http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t. Religion fits everybody.

[CoinCube]

While you find my definition of religion too narrow, I find your definition too broad.

Your definition encompasses each and every single factor an individual will live their life by, whether by choice or not, thus you're effectively defining the act of being alive as being involved in a religion.

My definition of religion requires the individual to worship an entity, be it supreme or human, and to live their lives governed by the rules that this entity defines or dictates.

Your point about your believing in God but not being a member of a formal religion aligns with my definition of not being religious. If any individual accused you of being religious without cause it would be self serving, regardless of how they identify with their own beliefs. By categorising you it allows them to stereo type and debate you based on that stereo type.

The issue you have though is that by your own definition you are religious, so any accusations are justified. The problem now is that because you don't identify with any particular religion the discussion is doomed to fall into disarray as there is no common ground of understanding around which to debate. The question now becomes, if you really are religious, which religion do you follow? If you can't answer that, then you're not religious.

Your arguments are logical. We have determined that our differences essentially amount to a difference in how we define religion. Mine is broader yours more narrow. Now we need to determine which is more useful more or functional if you will. You are of course correct that according to my definition I am essentially defining the acting of being alive as being involved in a religion. That is intentional for it is both accurate and instructive. Action is unavoidable and ultimately their are either subconscious or conscious reasons for these actions.

Lets examine the functionality of your definition. Lets use my case as an instructive example.

You ask me which religion do I follow. That's easy I follow the religion of Ethical Monotheism.
Ethical monotheism is the belief:
A) that there is only one God (monotheism)
and
B) that He is the source of ethics and morality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_monotheism

Now lets apply your criteria from immediately up-thread.
1) Is there a defined set of rules that I have to live by? Yes I have to believe in God and I have to figure out the ethics and morality that can be logically derived from a belief in God and follow those too.
2) Is there specific place and time I need to worship. Yes everywhere and always through my actions.
3) Is there an specific entity I need to worship? Yes God.

So according to your criteria as stated do I have all of the defining elements of a religion? Am I am religious?

If you answer no then you are essentially taking the position that someone who has embraced a religious construct to such a degree that it utterly transforms ones behavior, beliefs, and ethics is not religious. You can take that position but it exposes the overly narrow boundaries of your definition.

If you answer yes then you are essentially making the case that taking the logical position that consists of two claims A & B above is religious the the converse the logical position of not A not not B is not religious. This dichotomy begs further explanation.

I would argue that a broader definition of religion such as the one I outlined is more functional as it can be used to broadly capture the actual motivations of human action and behavior. It allows for an apples to apples comparison if you will of human belief structure.