Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[Moloch]

[CoinCube]

I know what is the difference between you and I.  You need to HAVE answers to unknowns.  I am ok to say I don't know.

That is why in your world you need to have an answer to who created the Big Bang.

In my world, I'm not sure if the Big Bang was created by anyone or how it came about at time 0. I don't know.

As a practical matter we all HAVE to have answers to basic inescapable questions about the nature of reality.

These answers cannot be avoided as engagement with the world cannot be avoided. Even if we profess a lack certainty we must act and such actions at their foundation are predicted upon our world views.

Verbally it is easy to deny assumptions or certainly but short of death we cannot deny or stop interacting with the world. It is these interactions where we show the world our answers. We live as though our answers were true and actions speak more loudly then words.

You have already shared with us some of your answers not that long ago.

...
Our universe, our chemistry and physics are pure lottery.
...
The fact that we are here is also pure chance.  
...
Homo Sapiens are not special.  Do not fool yourself into thinking that.  
....

What is common in all of these answers is that none of them can be proven. They are the foundations of a faith.

I have different answers.

1. Our universe, our chemistry and physics are are not lottery but design.
2. The fact that we are here is therefore not pure chance.  
3. Humanity was created in the image of our creator and is inherently valuable.

The real difference between us is that we follow different faiths.

[CoinCube]

Here is the problem with all these calculations. When the Beginning happened, be it by God-creation, or by some sort of big bang, time and other physics was not set in place like it is today. Time and other physics were all in formation.

What does this mean? It means that all of our math and understandings of past timelines are incorrect. Why are they incorrect? Because we are measuring things by the standards that we use, rather than by the standards that were in existence when the past happened.

Can we ever determine what the standards of the so-called distant past were? Possibly. But it will take way more calculation than we can currently program a computer to calculate, and it will take more precise measurements than we are able to make at this time. Why? Because we will need to see how physics is changing, just so we can extrapolate back to see what physics was in the so-called distant past.

We are absolutely just in the beginnings of understanding things. And things are so greatly complex that we may never understand them as individuals... even though a computer might be built that is capable of crunching the numbers so-to-speak.

Fair points it is indeed possible that things were different in the early universe. I came across the work of these scientists in an earlier discussion. Though the work discussed remains very theoretical the direction of research supports your position.

I have explained that we can't exist (the past and future will collapse) if there could exist an absolute truth...

iamnotback you have not made the case that an absolute truth cannot exist though perhaps you made this argument somewhere I am not aware of. In your essay The Universe you instead made this claim.

"If the speed-of-light were infinite, the time domain (and thus reality) would collapse to a single point, because all future changes in configuration would occur instantly."

There are a minority of scientists who believe that this is the exact the condition of the universe at the start of the big bang.

Scientists Think the Speed of Light Has Slowed, and They're Trying to Prove It
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/light-speed-slowed

But in the late 1990s, a handful of physicists challenged one of the fundamental assumptions underlying Einstein’s theory of special relativity: Instead of the speed of light being constant, they proposed that light was faster in the early universe than it is now.

This theory of the variable speed of light was—and still is—controversial. But according to a new paper published in November in the physics journal Physical Review D, it could be experimentally tested in the near future. If the experiments validate the theory, it means that the laws of nature weren’t always the same as what we experience today and would require a serious revision of Einstein’s theory of gravity.

"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light."

...
So just how much faster was light speed just after the Big Bang? According to Magueijo and his colleague Niayesh Afshordi, an associate professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Waterloo, the answer is “infinitely” faster.

The duo cite light speed as being at least 32 orders of magnitude faster than its currently accepted speed of 300 million meters per second—this is merely the lower bounds of the faster light speed, however. As you get closer to the Big Bang, the speed of light approaches infinity.

On this view, the speed of light was faster because the universe was incredibly hot at the beginning. According to Afshordi, their theory requires that the early universe was at least a toasty 10²⁸ degrees Celsius (to put this in perspective, the highest temperature we are capable of realizing on Earth is about 10¹⁶ degrees Celsius, a full 12 orders of magnitude cooler).

As the universe expanded and cooled below this temperature, light underwent a phase shift—much like liquid water changes into ice once the temperature reaches a certain threshold—and arrived at the speed we know today: 300 million meters per second. Just like ice won’t get more "icy" the colder the temperature gets, the speed of light has not been slowing down since it reached 300 million meters per second.

If Magueijo and Afshordi’s theory of variable light speed is correct, then the speed of light decreased in a predictable way—which means with sensitive enough instruments, this light speed decay can be measured.

"Varying speed of light is going back to the foundations of physics and saying perhaps there are things beyond relativity."

...
Now that they’ve used the variable light speed theory to put a hard number on the spectral index, all that remains to be seen is whether increasingly sensitive experiments probing the CMB and distribution of galaxies will verify or overturn their theory. Both Magueijo and Afshordi expect these results to be available at some point in the decade. But Marsh and other physicists aren't so sure.

If their theory is correct, it will overturn one of the main axiom’s underlying Einstein’s theory of special relativity and force physicists to reconsider the nature of gravity. According to Afshordi, however, it is more or less accepted in the physics community that Einstein’s theory of gravity cannot be the whole story

[BitcoinGuruOne]

The change of religion or transferring from atheism to some religion is something that happens with big trauma in life, loss of loved one or something other and is completely different discussion in my mind.

But most of the people are born in to religion, and one will find that people from poorer countries are more religious than for richer countries. Correlation is simple, there is more religious people in poor conditions.

[BADecker]

The change of religion or transferring from atheism to some religion is something that happens with big trauma in life, loss of loved one or something other and is completely different discussion in my mind.

But most of the people are born in to religion, and one will find that people from poorer countries are more religious than for richer countries. Correlation is simple, there is more religious people in poor conditions.

Yet, all people think, eat, love/hate, breathe, and do lots of things that are basically the same. So the wealthy people often forget that they are religious beings just like the poor. They are too absorbed in playing with their wealth.

[CoinCube]

...
1. Our universe, our chemistry and physics are are not lottery but design.
2. The fact that we are here is therefore not pure chance.  
3. Humanity was created in the image of our creator and is inherently valuable.
...

Wow, I did not expect that from you.  I thought you were smarter than that.

We humans have such an infantile understanding of the universe.
It is important not to overstate our knowledge.

Case in point a hologram is an image.

Study reveals substantial evidence of holographic universe
https://m.phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html

Theoretical physicists and astrophysicists, investigating irregularities in the cosmic microwave background (the 'afterglow' of the Big Bang), have found there is substantial evidence supporting a holographic explanation of the universe—in fact, as much as there is for the traditional explanation of these irregularities using the theory of cosmic inflation.

[Moloch]

...
1. Our universe, our chemistry and physics are are not lottery but design.
2. The fact that we are here is therefore not pure chance.  
3. Humanity was created in the image of our creator and is inherently valuable.
...

Wow, I did not expect that from you.  I thought you were smarter than that.

You realize CoinCube is the guy who started a thread titled, "Athiesm is Poison", right? (can't even spell Atheism) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.0)

He was bashing atheism daily, for more than a month, until I created a thread titled, "Christianity is poison"... at which point he finally renamed the thread... not exactly a brain genius you are dealing with here

[Indictus]

What is common in all of these answers is that none of them can be proven. They are the foundations of a faith.

I have different answers.

1. Our universe, our chemistry and physics are are not lottery but design.
2. The fact that we are here is therefore not pure chance. 
3. Humanity was created in the image of our creator and is inherently valuable.

The real difference between us is that we follow different faiths.

Dear lord never thought my first message here would be about this , so basically humanity is created/designed in the image of the creator but ignore the motion of how the creator came to be in the first place and it's existence is accepted by you as a starting point.

[Astargath]

...
1. Our universe, our chemistry and physics are are not lottery but design.
2. The fact that we are here is therefore not pure chance.  
3. Humanity was created in the image of our creator and is inherently valuable.
...

Wow, I did not expect that from you.  I thought you were smarter than that.

You realize CoinCube is the guy who started a thread titled, "Athiesm is Poison", right? (can't even spell Atheism) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.0)

He was bashing atheism daily, for more than a month, until I created a thread titled, "Christianity is poison"... at which point he finally renamed the thread... not exactly a brain genius you are dealing with here

He is drowning in science, grabs any hypothesis/theory he can to validate his existing conviction, whether it be the Big bang, the Bolzman brain, computer simulation, holographic principle, or dark matter etc.

When someone says humanity was created in the image of our creator, you know you are dealing with someone who does not understand biology.  The conversation is over at that point.

Sort of like notbatman and his dome theory of the electric field being responsible for the gravity.  You just know when people wandered off to the delusion la-la land.

The only question remains, how severe their delusion is.  

Then he accuses me of having faith.  Guess what Coincube, evolution does not need faith, expanding universe does not need faith, 4.5 Billion years old Earth does not need faith, etc.  we have data, we don't need faith.

Well Coincube is one of those guys that are smarter than the average christian. He actually accepts evolution and doesn't believe the earth is only 10k years old if I recall correctly.

[Moloch]

Well Coincube is one of those guys that are smarter than the average christian. He actually accepts evolution and doesn't believe the earth is only 10k years old if I recall correctly.

Actually, the average christian accepts evolution these days

This is from 2009, but ~50% of christians accepted evolution.




Here is a poll from in 2017

Story Highlights

    38% say God created man in present form, lowest in 35 years
    Same percentage say humans evolved, but God guided the process
    Less-educated Americans more likely to believe in creationism



% who believe God created humans in present form within last 10,000 years:
By religion:
Protestant/Other Christian = 50%
Catholic = 37%
No-religion = 9% (who are these guys?!?)

By education:
High school or less = 48%
College graduate = 24%
Post graduate = 21%

I know it sounds cray cray, but less than half of christians believe in creationism

[Wete]

I am Muslim, in my religion, I have never been taught to hate fellow humans and distinguish between religion, ethnicity, race or whatever. Of course every religion has its own rules or teachings that must be obeyed and lived. If there are religious people who make mistakes, blame that person don't blame his religion! In my opinion, there is no need to disturb or hate, I will do what I believe and please do what you believe, no need to disturb the trust of others. Peace is beautiful

[CoinCube]

You realize CoinCube is the guy who started a thread titled, "Athiesm is Poison", right? (can't even spell Atheism)(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.0)

... not exactly a brain genius you are dealing with here.

I had forgotten about that minor typo. I corrected it within minutes of posting and before anyone had even commented on it. I suspect you are the only one who even noticed.
I do find it a little sad that after hundreds of pages of debate and logical arguments you are reduced to attempted character assassination and grasping at minor typos from two and a half years ago.

...
When someone says humanity was created in the image of our creator, you know you are dealing with someone who does not understand biology.  The conversation is over at that point.
...
The only question remains, how severe their delusion is.  
...
Guess what Coincube, evolution does not need faith, expanding universe does not need faith, 4.5 Billion years old Earth does not need faith, etc.  we have data, we don't need faith.

More personal attacks. It seems that debate has achieved all it can at this time. For the record, however, I have never argued against evolution.
We all have faith. Some of us understand our faith. Others do not.

Dear lord never thought my first message here would be about this , so basically humanity is created/designed in the image of the creator but ignore the motion of how the creator came to be in the first place and it's existence is accepted by you as a starting point.

As I noted above saying humanity was created in the image of God may have a more nuanced meaning then is commonly appreciated.
Nevertheless I do accept the existence of the creator as a starting point. Here is why this is the most reasonable place to start.

An Argument for God

[Moloch]

People are being mean to me  

Says the guy who spent months, if not years, attacking atheists, etc

You can dish it out, but can't take it?

For what it's worth, stating facts is not a personal attack... sorry, not sorry

[BADecker]

People are being mean to me  

Says the guy who spent months, if not years, attacking atheists, etc

You can dish it out, but can't take it?

For what it's worth, stating facts is not a personal attack... sorry, not sorry

Attacking science and understanding is NOT attacking people, except under one circumstance. That circumstance is when the people have science and understanding as their religion.

All Coincube attacks is science and understanding with other science and understanding. But you take it as a personal attack, thereby showing that your religion is science and understanding. So YOU are the one who hates science when you hate religion.

[BADecker]

People are being mean to me  

Says the guy who spent months, if not years, attacking atheists, etc

You can dish it out, but can't take it?

For what it's worth, stating facts is not a personal attack... sorry, not sorry

Attacking science and understanding is NOT attacking people, except under one circumstance. That circumstance is when the people have science and understanding as their religion.

All Coincube attacks is science and understanding with other science and understanding. But you take it as a personal attack, thereby showing that your religion is science and understanding. So YOU are the one who hates science when you hate religion.

This post beats all your previous posts.  You are off the charts!!!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1367154.msg13910414#msg13910414

I can understand how you are emotionally distraught. Like Moloch your religion is being calmly shown for what it is. And you are helping to show it, even though you don't want it to be that way.

Why do you hate your religion so much that you don't stick up for it, but would rather prove its existence by not sticking up for it? Answer this and we might have the answer to this whole thread.

[Llaux]

As an Atheist, I don't hate religion, to my many relatives religion holds an important place and I respect that. What I hate is the power gained by using religion. Power gained by deception and manipulation is always a bad thing but adding religion to it amplifies it a lot. I have seen people that believe in god from the heart without any other thought and I respect that sincere belief a lot.

[CoinCube]

Says the guy who spent months, if not years, attacking atheists, etc

You can dish it out, but can't take it?

For what it's worth, stating facts is not a personal attack... sorry, not sorry

Attacking science and understanding is NOT attacking people, except under one circumstance. That circumstance is when the people have science and understanding as their religion.

All Coincube attacks is science and understanding with other science and understanding. But you take it as a personal attack, thereby showing that your religion is science and understanding. So YOU are the one who hates science when you hate religion.

This post beats all your previous posts.  You are off the charts!!!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1367154.msg13910414#msg13910414

I can understand how you are emotionally distraught. Like Moloch your religion is being calmly shown for what it is. And you are helping to show it, even though you don't want it to be that way.

Why do you hate your religion so much that you don't stick up for it, but would rather prove its existence by not sticking up for it? Answer this and we might have the answer to this whole thread.

Actually I am fairly certain I have not personally attacked or insulted any atheist on this forum.

I have spent a good deal of time critiquing the idea of atheism mostly in the Health and Religion thread.

I highlighted the tremendous number of scientific studies that indicate atheism is an unhealthy choice. In the link at the very bottom of that opening post I make other philosophical and practical arguments against atheism.

Is critiquing atheism an attack on individual atheist?

I would answer no but BadDecker raises a valid point. If an atheist holds to his belief with a religious fervor. If he accepts it axiomatically as true and structures his worldview around it. Perhaps then my critique would be perceived as a personal attack?

Regardless any such a perception really is the the problem of those who have made the mistake of elevating atheism into a personal faith. If someone has built their their house on a foundation sand it is doomed to fall sooner or later.

[FolckBeat]

Atheists by themselves believe so much in the absence of God, so actually they could be called a religious movement 

[BADecker]

Axiomatically?  The Atheist position is based on the scientific evidence or in case of God a lack of it.

BTW, I base my truths on science.  And guess what? They might change as a new scientific evidence becomes available.

My position is based on the most reliable method of discovering the truth that we know of, your position is based on a book that inspired you to develop a sci-fi story in your mind.

Frankly, I don't care anymore what you and BADecker believe.  It is your delusion, so you deal with it.  I tried.  I cannot help you any more than I can help notbatman.

Yeh, sure, rolf.

Why do you reject all this science that shows that God exists?:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

And there is a whole thread about this where, if nothing else, you can see that atheism is very weak, but if you study, you can see that God exists - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0.

[BADecker]

Axiomatically?  The Atheist position is based on the scientific evidence or in case of God a lack of it.

BTW, I base my truths on science.  And guess what? They might change as a new scientific evidence becomes available.

My position is based on the most reliable method of discovering the truth that we know of, your position is based on a book that inspired you to develop a sci-fi story in your mind.

Frankly, I don't care anymore what you and BADecker believe.  It is your delusion, so you deal with it.  I tried.  I cannot help you any more than I can help notbatman.

Yeh, sure, rolf.

Why do you reject all this science that shows that God exists?:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

And there is a whole thread about this where, if nothing else, you can see that atheism is very weak, but if you study, you can see that God exists - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0.

There is nothing to reject because science does not deal with the question of God existence.  There is no data on God.

Well, at least, that explains it. You haven't even figured out that science deals with everything. Google "the science of religion" and "the science of philosophy."