Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[CoinCube]

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.

Yes axiomatically for the atheist position is simply not a scientific one. Belief to the contrary is the result of mistaken inference.

Science is a cooperative social system.. It is a system based on reason which excludes all reference to divine revelation. Since science excludes divine revelation, it can have no formal impact on theology, nor can it have any formal impact on philosophy.

The idea that science in any way invalidates a belief in God is the result of a very common logical fallacy.

Naturally, since Science excludes divine revelation, science can have no formal impact on theology, nor can it have any formal impact on philosophy.

Yet, apparently, science has substantially impacted on theology and philosophy - it is, for example taken to have discredited Christianity.

How did this perception arise?

1. Science as (until recently) been perceived as in enabling (somehow, indirectly) humans to increase power over nature (this perception may be subjective/ delusional, or false, as it often is now - or it can be all-but undeniable).

Yet science is (or rather was) successful mainly because a lot of smart people were putting a lot of effort into discovering truth.

(And now that people don't try to discover truth, they don't discover it - naturally not.)

2. Sheer habit. People trained and competent in the (wholly artificial) scientific way of thinking, which a priori excludes religious explanations, leads to human beings who habitually exclude divine explanations.
*
And it turns out that habit is very powerful as a socialization device.

Such that people trained in an artificial (hence difficult) and socially-approved specialized mode of thinking, eventually do not notice the exclusions of their mode of thought, and assume that their mode of thought is the whole thing; assume that that which was excluded a priori has instead been excluded because it was false.

A mistaken inference - but mainstream in modernity.

Basing your truths in science is by and large a sound policy but God lies outside the scope of science.

An individual truly motivated by science alone who did not make false inferences could only be agnostic as the question simply cannot be answered within that framework.

[dippididodaday]

Apart from, but not unrelated to, previously mentioned points to answer the burning question on everyone's mind, why Atheists Hate Religion, the following point:

"God" has not stepped forward and defended his position / being. The only ones stepping forward are humans. Therefore, not one single assertion claiming to be of "God", for "God" or by "God" is relevant, or even noteworthy - not even one, and never will be, ever - as long as that assertion is made by a member of homo sapiens, the species the users posting replies in this topic,  are a part of. Any and all references to any and all phenomena, data, records etc. that involves, or are attributed to "God" are null and void and weigh a complete 0 on any scale, used anywhere by anyone, whether axiomatic, a priori, predicated, extrapolated or a substrate, or not.

Since "God" can not speak up, he should forever hold his peace and let homo sapiens do their work, diligently and fervently, as is their nature.

[BADecker]

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."

Psychology or Psychiatry is not science just like gambling is not science.  Just because you use observations and statistics does not make your field scientific.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/11/why_psychology_and_statistics_are_not_science.html

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/05/30/what_separates_science_from_non-science_106278.html

Learn basic definitions before you use them.

"Science of religion", or more precisely a "study of religious delusions" is not science.  

You've never heard of the science of gambling? Gambling has to do with the odds... probability. All that quantum mechanics is, is complex probability. See: Brian Cox explains quantum mechanics in 60 seconds - BBC News - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo. Do you really think that quantum is not science?

Not all science of religion is science of religious delusions. But some of it is... like the science of the atheism religion.

[BADecker]

Apart from, but not unrelated to, previously mentioned points to answer the burning question on everyone's mind, why Atheists Hate Religion, the following point:

"God" has not stepped forward and defended his position / being. The only ones stepping forward are humans. Therefore, not one single assertion claiming to be of "God", for "God" or by "God" is relevant, or even noteworthy - not even one, and never will be, ever - as long as that assertion is made by a member of homo sapiens, the species the users posting replies in this topic,  are a part of. Any and all references to any and all phenomena, data, records etc. that involves, or are attributed to "God" are null and void and weigh a complete 0 on any scale, used anywhere by anyone, whether axiomatic, a priori, predicated, extrapolated or a substrate, or not.

Since "God" can not speak up, he should forever hold his peace and let homo sapiens do their work, diligently and fervently, as is their nature.

God most certainly has "stepped forward and" displayed His position. The whole universe is His expression of Himself. Just because He isn't going to give in to unbelievers and do it their way, doesn't mean he hasn't done it, and isn't continuing to do it.

[BADecker]

The discussion of God existence is not a scientific question because we cannot collect data on God to study him/her/it.

My reality is based on science and God is not in it.

Anyone who states that God exists is just making a claim that cannot be proved scientifically.

Some people believe in many strange things that do not exist in real life, God(s) included; they are just deluding themselves.

Since God created the universe, including all the science in it, your reality is absolutely based on God and science.

[CoinCube]

The discussion of God existence is not a scientific question because we cannot collect data on God to study him/her/it.

My reality is based on science...

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but your reality is not based on science at least not entirely. You may want it to be but that's entirely impossible.

Here are a few questions that demonstrate this point.

* Is there any point to it all?
* Why are we here?
* How should we live?
* Why be moral?
* Why is there evil?
* Do we live on after death?
* How can we find release from suffering and sadness?
* What can we hope for?

You may have answers for these questions but whatever those answers may be they are certainly not scientific for there is no study to test their validity.

Those answers even if tentative in all probability have and shape the course of your life far more then any particular study or scientific truth ever could.

There is no escaping the necessity or the impact of a priori truth.

[CoinCube]

* Is there any point to it all?  To pass your genes to the next generation. (Biology)
* Why are we here? Because our parents made us. (Biology)
* How should we live? To survive and secure that your genes are passed on to the next generation(s). (Biology)
* Why be moral? It helps you survive in the long-term. Being immoral is self-destructive. (Biology)
* Why is there evil? I do not think evil exists.  Some people might behave immorally in hopes to help them survive better. (Biology)
* Do we live on after death? No.  Death is an irreversible process. (Biology, Physics)
* How can we find release from suffering and sadness? Lower your stress by socializing with other life forms, love someone, relax, find a hobby you enjoy doing. (Biology)
* What can we hope for? Whatever you wish.  Hope is unlimited.  It is a thought in your brain.  I hope to live to 120. (Biology)

Let's unpack these answers a bit.

By claiming biology as ultimate end you assume that process is purpose.

By grounding purpose in biology which you in turn ground in the randomness of evolution you assume meaning itself to be random and ultimately nothing more then chances arbitrary output.

By questioning the existence of morality you assume that there is no such thing as good and evil for such concepts are presumed to be evolution's useful delusions at best.

What is notable about these assumptions is not only are they not scientifically testable they they are very much in line with a well known and prominent philosophy.

Nihilism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/; from Latin nihil, meaning 'nothing') is the philosophicalviewpoint that suggests the denial or lack of belief towards the reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism may also take epistemological, ontological, or metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or reality does not actually exist.

Nihilism is not a scientific belief nor is it testable.

You seem to have a adopted a worldview centered on a faith in nihilism and built a structure of science upon that foundation to understand the world.

I have done something similar but built my worldview upon a different foundation which is why our approaches to problems are sometimes similar yet always seem to yield radically different outputs.

[Moloch]

* How can we find release from suffering and sadness?

I would recommend looking into Theravada Buddhism... they have correctly diagnosed the cause of suffering and lay out a path to cure yourself from it

Other than the occasional mention of reincarnation, it is more of a science based philosophy than a religion.  Think of it as a self-help manual

Here is a fantastic example, I would highly recommend watching this video to anyone and everyone:
Ajahn Brahm - Freeing Our Minds From The Mental Prisons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg_FsPEwOB0

[CoinCube]

You asked questions about one particular life form then you are surprised the answers are rooted in Biology?

Ask me anything about any non-living thing and the answers will be rooted in Physics or Chemistry.

I gave you our life purpose and meaning.

Yes I did and to your credit you answered straightforwardly and in a manner that lets us cut to the heart of the issue.

We saw that at the center of your belief structure once we slip past the rings of scientific thought lies a belief a faith in nihilism. Similarly we could do the same for me and once past the science we would find theism.

That fundamental difference makes sense and explains our prolonged argument over these many pages and threads. A robotic individual with a wholly scientific perspective would have no interest or motivation to participate in such a debate. Is it currently empirically testable they would ask? If the answer was no they would shrug their shoulders say they had no idea and move on to other topics that could be tested.

There are, however, many questions that matter deeply to us that are not empirically testable. I highlighted a few above but there are many many others. This is why a foundational religion or philosophy is an inescapable necessity if we are going to interact with the world.

Some foundational philosophies are mutually exclusive. When proponents of such philosophies meet clashes and conflict is expected which is exactly what we see.

[CoinCube]

* How can we find release from suffering and sadness?

I would recommend looking into Theravada Buddhism... they have correctly diagnosed the cause of suffering and lay out a path to cure yourself from it

Other than the occasional mention of reincarnation, it is more of a science based philosophy than a religion.  Think of it as a self-help manual

Here is a fantastic example, I would highly recommend watching this video to anyone and everyone:
Ajahn Brahm - Freeing Our Minds From The Mental Prisons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg_FsPEwOB0

Watched the beginning looks interesting will watch the rest later.

I have nothing bad to say about Buddhism. I am not particularly familiar with all of its tennents but I have met some wise Buddhists in my life.

About nihilism, however I have lots of bad things to say. I debated the topic here: Debate on Nihilism.

[CoinCube]

You asked questions about one particular life form then you are surprised the answers are rooted in Biology?

Ask me anything about any non-living thing and the answers will be rooted in Physics or Chemistry.

I gave you our life purpose and meaning.

Yes I did and to your credit you answered straightforwardly and in a manner that lets us cut to the heart of the issue.

We saw that at the center of your belief structure once we slip past the rings of scientific thought lies a belief a faith in nihilism. Similarly we could do the same for me and once past the science we would find theism.

That fundamental difference makes sense and explains our prolonged argument over these many pages and threads. A robotic individual with a wholly scientific perspective would have no interest or motivation to participate in such a debate. Is it currently empirically testable they would ask? If the answer was no they would shrug their shoulders say they had no idea and move on to other topics that could be tested.

There are, however, many questions that matter deeply to us that are not empirically testable. I highlighted a few above but there are many many others. This is why a foundational religion or philosophy is an inescapable necessity if we are going to interact with the world.

Some foundational philosophies are mutually exclusive. When proponents of such philosophies meet clashes and conflict is expected which is exactly what we see.

I agree.  I bet if I ask you what is the purpose of bees your answer will be different than mine.

You see my position as too simplistic.

I see your delving for some supernatural cause that physically is not there as being deluded.

Yes and thus we reach the end of the road.

Our differences are revealled to be ultimately not scientific in nature but directly traceable to different empirically untestable and mutually exclusive a priori truths.

BadDecker would say we have different religious. I think that word has too much potential for misunderstanding and would instead say that we have different faiths.

[CoinCube]

I don't care if you call me a nihilist or science a faith.  Your framing is based on your delusional worldview, IMHO.

It does not change the fact that science is not faith and I am not a nihilist.

Here is a description of what nihilist assume about the nature of existence. What if anything do you feel is false?

Nihilism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/; from Latin nihil, meaning 'nothing') is the philosophicalviewpoint that suggests the denial or lack of belief towards the reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived.

[BADecker]

I don't care if you call me a nihilist or science a faith.  Your framing is based on your delusional worldview, IMHO.

It does not change the fact that science is not faith and I am not a nihilist.

Here is a description of what nihilist assume about the nature of existence. What if anything do you feel is false?

Nihilism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/; from Latin nihil, meaning 'nothing') is the philosophicalviewpoint that suggests the denial or lack of belief towards the reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived.

Sounds like the only thing that keeps a nihilist going is an an optimistic focus on the pessimism of his nihilism.

[KonstantinosM]

I hate religion because it divides people into groups. The division then fractures our society and gives a big advantage to those who belong to the in-groups while it pushes atheists out.

There's multiple churches and programs for religious people to just walk into and socialize, work-out make friends, and all of that shit is tax free (therefore they get a tax-advantage compared to me) and all I get is the knowledge that I'm not foolish enough to believe in fairy-tales.

[CoinCube]

...
I think nihilism of the 19th century does not fit the humanist Atheist positions of today.

You are painting Atheists with Nietzsche's brush.  Anyone who does not subscribe to your religious worldview must be a nihilist.  That is your mistake.
...
I think you are stuck in the past, both with your religious and philosophical readings.

Nietzsche's was a very smart man tormented but smart.

I would never claim all atheist are nihilist that is clearly untrue. Some Buddhists for example are atheist.  There can certainly be variety in belief.

Thus if you say there is some subtlety to your views that is incompatible with nihilism I will take you at your word though to be honest I have yet to see any fundamental difference between your expressed views so far at those of nihilism.

To not fall into the category of nihilism there would need to be some fundamental incompatibility between your worldview and that of nihilism excluding you from said categorization. You have not made any such conflict clear but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

I far as I can see your logic quickly reduces to nihilistic principles as I noted immediately above.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg46746122#msg46746122

You argued in return that my framing is based on my delusional worldview. Perhaps this is a good place to stop. I feel I have made my case, you do not, and any reader of this thread can decide for themselves.

The final word is yours.

[Moloch]

Hate to interrupt guys, but breaking news!

Man Made His Wife Kill Herself So He Could Use Insurance Money to Build Church
http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/10/11/man-made-his-wife-kill-herself-so-he-could-use-insurance-money-to-build-church/

An Australian man convinced his wife to kill herself so that he could use the $1.4 million in insurance payouts to build a church and a commune for the rapture.

A jury recently concluded that 69-year-old Graham Robert Morant, who wanted to serve as the pastor of the church he would build with the ill-gotten insurance funds, is responsible for the death of his wife, Jennifer Morant. The jury found that Jennifer wouldn’t have committed suicide if not for pressure from her husband.

    Jennifer Morant lived with chronic back pain, and found even the most simple every day tasks difficult, but did not have a terminal illness.

    Her husband persuaded her to take her life over several months by telling her the funds would go towards a commune that would provide a haven from the biblical rapture, where he would be pastor.

    He told police she wanted to die but two witnesses close to her testified she did not want to kill herself and was scared by his pressure on her to do so.

    “I had such a zest and zeal to live. She had such a zest and zeal to die,” Graham Morant told police in an interview.

    Her best friend, Johanna Cornelia Dent, said Jennifer Morant felt the only way to escape death was to win the lottery.

Morant even justified the act of suicide to his wife by claiming God would be totally OK with it.

    Graham Morant told his wife her suicide would not be a sin in God’s eyes because of the financial benefit to their church, her sister, Lynette Anne Lucas, told the jury. He said she would be too weak to survive the rapture, Lucas testified.

    The jury deliberated for a day and a half before reaching its verdict on Tuesday. Members of the public gallery burst into tears after the verdict was handed down.

The jury may have convicted Morant, but the judge has left open the possibility that his sentence might be suspended either completely or in part because he wasn’t considered public risk and hadn’t breached the conditions of his bail.

I hope the judge doesn’t do that, though. Morant deserves punishment for what he did — and depriving him of that could send a green light to others who may be similarly deluded in the name of religion and selfishness. The sentencing phase will begin soon.

discuss...

[CoinCube]

Hate to interrupt guys, but breaking news!

Man Made His Wife Kill Herself So He Could Use Insurance Money to Build Church
http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/10/11/man-made-his-wife-kill-herself-so-he-could-use-insurance-money-to-build-church/

Morant deserves punishment for what he did — and depriving him of that could send a green light to others who may be similarly deluded in the name of religion and selfishness. The sentencing phase will begin soon.

discuss...

End of the article sums up my feelings. Sickening story.

In many ways these types of crimes are the worst of them all. Dennis Prager sums it up well.

The Greatest Sin
 http://www.dennisprager.com/the-greatest-sin/

There is one sin that may be worse than all other sins. And it is taking place on a large scale today.

There are some religious people who maintain that one cannot declare any sin worse than any other — that a person who takes an office pen is committing as grievous a sin in God’s eyes as a murderer. But most people intuitively, as well as biblically, understand that there are gradations of sin.

Having a background in theology and a lifetime of teaching the Bible from the original Hebrew, I would like to offer evidence for demarcating one sin as worse than all others. Indeed it may be the only sin that God will not forgive:

Committing evil in the name of God.
My basis is the Ten Commandments. The Commandment widely translated as “Do not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” is imprecisely translated. The original Hebrew literally reads, “Do not carry the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”

And, the Commandment continues, “for God will not hold guiltless (literally, “will not cleanse”) whoever carries His name in vain.”

As a strong believer that God (or whomever one credits with authoring the Ten Commandments) has at least as much common sense as I do, it seems inconceivable that God can “cleanse” (implying “forgive”) a murderer but not someone who said God’s name when he shouldn’t have. Therefore, the Commandment about the misuse (“misuse” is the translation of the New International Version of the Bible, my favorite translation) of God’s name must be about far more than merely using God’s name “in vain.”

I admit that I come to this conclusion as a result of my Jewish education. Every yeshiva student learns early in life that the greatest sin is khillul Hashem, public desecration of the Name (of God), and conversely, the greatest mitzvah (commandment, good deed) is kiddush Hashem, public sanctification of the Name. I well remember, for example, one of my rabbis in yeshiva telling us not to go to what were then called “dirty” movies, but if we did go, to take off our yarmulkes first — to enter a dirty movie theater announcing that we were religious Jews would desecrate God’s name.
Imagine, then, how bad committing atrocities in God’s name must be.

Let me explain this in another way.

When a secular person commits evil, it is surely evil, but it doesn’t bring God and religion in disrepute. When a person commits evil in God’s name, however, he destroys the greatest hope for goodness to prevail on earth — widespread belief in a God who demands goodness (ethical monotheism). There is nothing as evil as religious evil.
...
If there is a hell, those who murder and torture the innocent while praising God are surely the first to go there.

[pozmu]

Quite simply, I don't like being lied to

I don't believe in gods for the same reason I don't believe in ghosts, gremlins, leprechauns, faeries, unicorns, zombies, vampires, bigfoot, angels, demons, crystals, chakras, chi, dowsing, tarot cards, mediums, psychics, and many other human inventions which have zero scientific evidence to support the claim of their existence

I think that's what most atheists answer would be.
But on the other side, they would agree that many religious rules are good, for example ten commandments. But they would like to people to follow such rules not because of fear of being damned but because it's right thing to do, because of morality etc.
I've seen a TV show and priest, when asked if he knows that God and Heaven exist answered, that he only has faith that's true.
He used "faith" in it's 1st meaning:

faith noun (TRUST)
​
[ U ] a high degree of trust or confidence in something or someone:

[ + that clause ] I have faith that she will do the right thing.

So even some church's people don't take holy books 100% seriously.
Many people believes that holy books were written as a form of law, God, Hell and Heaven was used as motivation to make people follow rules written in them.
Atheists believe that in today, modern world we no longer need these motivators and that many religious rules aren't needed/ good.

So you can say that atheists hate religion because they feel sorry for people that fall prey to religion.

Sorry for not reading 418 pages of this topic.

[Ngoziwealth]

I cannot tell why Atheist hate religion because I am not one. I am a Christian an I believe in the existence of God, the Father, His son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

In my opinion which could either be rejected or accepted I think Atheist shun the existence of deities because of their belief system and of course every man's belief is his reality. In essence, change your belief change your reality.

[BADecker]

You claim that because I base the meaning of life on the life itself that meaning is invalid because the evolution (randomness) is taking place?  Is that what you said?

Which meaning has stronger fundamental rooting, mine based on Biology (that we can test and verify) or yours based on the Bronze Age scripture?  Are you sure you thought this through?  You evaluated 3000+ religious ideologies and determined that Christianity provides the true meaning of life?  If you did, let's hear it.  How did you exclude Egyptian, Hindu, Chinese, Sumerian, Mayan, Aztec and Greek mythologies?
If you have a way to invalidate these other beliefs, you can use the same resoaning to invalidate your religious beliefs.

If you don't have a proof that all other religions are wrong and yours is right, then you just picked your life meaning out of a hat with all religions in it.  It is pure luck that you ended up with Christianity.  If you grew up and lived in Pakistan, you would be Muslim and derive the meaning/purpose of life from Islam.  If you grew up in Guatemala in the 4th century, you would be following Mayan customs and traditions and deriving meaning of life from that.  Do you see a problem?

So please stop calling Biology a faith.  Biology is objective.  All humans work the same way anywhere on the planet.  All people want peace and see their children and grandchildren grow up in peace.  It does not matter if they live in Colombia, Saudi Arabia or Sweden.  It does not matter if they are Muslims, Christians, Jews or Scientologists.  

People who would follow my reasoning and base their purpose in life on Biology would end up with the same conclusions because Biology is the same everywhere you go on this planet and beyond.  Regardless of which book you read from, regardless of which culture you grew up in, or who your parents were.

Which position is more objective, yours or mine?  You searched for objective morality and ended up with subjective reflections of 40+ Bronze Age authors who wrote the Bible.  Science is objective.  Scientific method and peer-reviews make sure of that.

Religions are subjective, a sheer number of Christian denominations is a proof of that.  Even in the same denominations, people cannot agree.  Drill it down, even in some Christian families of the same denomination, people cannot agree on the interpretation of the (subjective) writings of the Bible writers.  Is owning slaves ok?  Is killing gays ok?  Is working on Sabbath bad? Would you sacrifice your son if God asked you?

Morality derived from religions is subjective because people have nothing else to go on but some ancient texts.  So their imagination goes wild.  Just like reading a novel. God does not bother to enlighten them directly.  Guess what? Science can.

Biology isn't objective. The study of it is what can be objective. However, we have so little knowledge of how things work - especially in biology - that our basic conclusions about it approaches religious thinking more than they do objective biology thinking.

How do we know this? We talk about evolution being real, when we don't have even one proof. We talk about being able to live longer by adjusting biology, but we haven't been able to outdo nature for long life, yet.

We are essentially in primitive stages of biology investigation and manipulation. Talking about it like we know more than we do, is turning it into something like religion for us. Why? Because this makes it a faith thing rather than a knowledge thing.