Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[Vod]

If you read the thread, No scientific proof that God exists! you will see that Astargath is simply opposed to the idea of God. God could walk right up to him and give him a $million, or slap him in the face, or heal all his ills, or anything else, and still Astargath wouldn't accept that God exists.

I'm sure Astargath would realize he is dreaming and accept that the one god exists in his mind while he is sleeping.

But he has to wake up sometime, and your particular god probably does not exist - but there is no way to prove either way.  :/

[1715302671]

1715302671

[CoinCube]

That idea was invented and then monetized.  Poor schmucks don't know what hit them.  All they know is that they have to pay respect and pay dearly and often $$$.

Actually af_newbie the reality was always there. What we see in the various ideologies of the day are the bastardization and truncations of that basic reality.  
Some ideologies are more complete or less truncated then others. All, however, represent incomplete edits if you will of an original and complete moral foundation.

I have been familiarizing myself lately with the writings of C.S. Lewis. I was previously unaware of the impressive nature and depth of his writing. Here is an narration of his work that I recommend you watch. It's 30 minutes which I realize is long but it is relevant to our recent discussions. If you find the time to watch it I recommend asking the following question as you do.

How does your own ethical code "Do not harm people or animals" fit into the overall debate discussed in the video?

On Ethics by C.S. Lewis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdos6zUk27Q

[BADecker]

If you read the thread, No scientific proof that God exists! you will see that Astargath is simply opposed to the idea of God. God could walk right up to him and give him a $million, or slap him in the face, or heal all his ills, or anything else, and still Astargath wouldn't accept that God exists.

I'm sure Astargath would realize he is dreaming and accept that the one god exists in his mind while he is sleeping.

But he has to wake up sometime, and your particular god probably does not exist - but there is no way to prove either way.  :/

Fortunately, that thread shows two kinds of proof for God. One kind is the machine nature of the universe. Machines have makers.

[Vod]

Fortunately, that thread shows two kinds of proof for God. One kind is the machine nature of the universe. Machines have makers.

I find it odd your god won't let us prove he exists.  He actually forbids it!

Your god demands we believe him unconditionally, or we burn in hell forever.

Choose another god dude. 

[CoinCube]

Fortunately, that thread shows two kinds of proof for God. One kind is the machine nature of the universe. Machines have makers.

I find it odd your god won't let us prove he exists.  He actually forbids it!

Your god demands we believe him unconditionally, or we burn in hell forever.

Choose another god dude.  

Hypothetically, Vod what grounding do you think is sufficient to sustain something eternal?

What imaginary pleasure or purpose would not become tedious even torturous after centuries of repetition let alone millennium?

The most compelling and logical vision of Hell that I have read is that it is something we create for ourselves. That Hell is the logical result of grounding ourselves in something insufficient and flawed. A punishment yes but ultimately a self inflicted one.

The following describes this perspective:

Does God Send People To Hell?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tiYf6ITgWbk

[CoinCube]

On Ethics by C.S. Lewis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdos6zUk27Q

My comment was about the idea of 'God'.

You want to discuss ethics, ok.  Here we go.

We don't live in a vacuum.  Our moral and ethical stance is largely determined by the society we live in.  My personal feeling of not harming animals (humans included) comes from within.  I cannot bear to see suffering, never mind be the source of it.

Many of the moral codes from Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim mythologies I agree with, don't lie, don't kill, be nice to people, love your neighbor etc.  Just because some of the religious codes seem to be reasonable, it does not mean that the rest of them are acceptable.

BTW, to me, instinct has a completely different meaning than to CW. Lewis.  Not sure why he sexualizes the term.  To me to have an instinct really means to have an intuition to determine the correct course of action in this context.  To him it means some sort of sexual urge to reproduce.   I am not sure if he had children.  He said he does not have an instinct to protect his children.  I don't get it.  I would always protect my children.  If you don't have an instinct to protect your offspring, to me it means that the biology did not select your genes for survival.

As you know, I vehemently reject that any of the religious moral codes have been divinely inspired.  

I would never agree that the stoning of adulterers, gays or atheists is ok, that owning people as slaves is ok, that cutting hands of thieves is ok.  Regardless of the source of such codes, secular or religious.

The point is our morals and ethics are neither completely secular or religious.  Written human history was dominated by religion in one form or the other.  Only in the last century, we tried to introduce new, secular, more progressive values.  I hope you see and acknowledge that progressive values are beneficial and reduce suffering.

If tomorrow a new secular government takes power and declares that discrimination of people is ok, and owning people is ok, I would be against it, no matter which ruling party introduces such laws.

I agree that we don't live in a vacuum. C.S. Lewis correctly argues that such a vacuum is impossible.

I also agree that Christianity did not create a new moral code. The code was already there. As C.S. Lewis so eloquently noted Christianity did not create morals it presupposed their existence and universality. The moral imperative is categorical.

You state that your personal beliefs of of not harming animals (humans included) comes from within. I agree that those feelings come from within but would take that a step further and say that those beliefs are not just your meaningless subjective personal feelings but actually represent an objective fundamental reality.

We should refrain from these things not because any one person or many might be bothered by them but because causing unnecessary pain and suffering in our fellow living creatures is fundamentally wrong.

With regards to "progressive values" they are as is everything a mixed bag. Certainly they are most definitely not uniformly good. The most important point in the video is the conclusion. C.S. Lewis demonstrates clearly that almost all modern systems of ethics are in fact bastardized truncations of a greater and more complete moral code.

One by one various "modern" ethics of the 20th century are exposed for what they are incomplete fragments of a greater whole and ultimately self-contradictory. The inevitable result of embracing one of these fragmentary ethics is a predictable loss of freedom.

[SCheek]

When one loses hope themselves they hold others who still have it with contempt. It's nothing short of jealously.

[BADecker]

Christianity added a bunch of moral codes that you (and any good person, regardless whether they are Christian, Jew or Muslim) would disagree with.  Slavery, killing people for some arbitrary reasons, such as belief/disbelief in a deity, sexual preference, sex etc.

If no religion ever existed, we would have arrived at the same or better moral codes.

Religion hinders not only the scientific progress but a moral one.  Without religion and its arbitrary codes, we would actually think if cutting heads off or stoning people at the edge of town actually does any good.  Religion prevents people from thinking.
When they think critically, they immediately sin.

BTW, what you call a "greater and complete moral code" included slavery, i.e. it was wrong, to begin with.
Traces of Neanderthal DNA in our DNA is a proof of that.

The only slavery Christianity added is, the slavery of having to love your neighbor as yourself... if you wanted to be a true Christian, that is. And more directly, for Christians to love one another as Jesus loved them.

So we see, that you, being anti-Christian, are opposed to love. And you are showing this constantly by the fact that you are trying to tear down the love of Christianity.

Love of others - especially the love of Christ in all people - would improve science way beyond the silly limits that it has imposed on itself because of its love of money. It would bring forth the miracles of healing that science can't perform (and might never be able to perform). It would produce far greater thinking than science can ever induce.

[CoinCube]

If no religion ever existed, we would have arrived at the same or better moral codes.

Religion hinders not only the scientific progress but a moral one.[/b]

This lies at the heart of your error. Your great misperceptions that leads you to false conclusions.

A philosophy that does not accept value as eternal and objective can lead only to ruin.

If you reject this reality from me perhaps a greater mind then I can help you see it. I have probably shared too many of these videos recently but this one is short so I will make it the final one.

C.S. Lewis describes the failure inherent and unavoidable in your approach.

The Poison of Subjectivism by C.S. Lewis
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

[BADecker]

Christianity added a bunch of moral codes that you (and any good person, regardless whether they are Christian, Jew or Muslim) would disagree with.  Slavery, killing people for some arbitrary reasons, such as belief/disbelief in a deity, sexual preference, sex etc.

If no religion ever existed, we would have arrived at the same or better moral codes.

Religion hinders not only the scientific progress but a moral one.  Without religion and its arbitrary codes, we would actually think if cutting heads off or stoning people at the edge of town actually does any good.  Religion prevents people from thinking.
When they think critically, they immediately sin.

BTW, what you call a "greater and complete moral code" included slavery, i.e. it was wrong, to begin with.
Traces of Neanderthal DNA in our DNA is a proof of that.

The only slavery Christianity added is, the slavery of having to love your neighbor as yourself... if you wanted to be a true Christian, that is. And more directly, for Christians to love one another as Jesus loved them.

So we see, that you, being anti-Christian, are opposed to love. And you are showing this constantly by the fact that you are trying to tear down the love of Christianity.

Love of others - especially the love of Christ in all people - would improve science way beyond the silly limits that it has imposed on itself because of its love of money. It would bring forth the miracles of healing that science can't perform (and might never be able to perform). It would produce far greater thinking than science can ever induce.

Just read my previous post before you blast your Christianity on me.

I said: "Many of the moral codes from Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim mythologies I agree with, don't lie, don't kill, be nice to people, love your neighbor etc.  Just because some of the religious codes seem to be reasonable, it does not mean that the rest of them are acceptable."

I disagree with the tenets your cult is based on, not all the moral code that it espouses.

BTW, love means love of gays and other undesirables.  Including Atheists and Evolutionary Biologists who are invalidating your Christian doctrine every day.  How many Christians love Atheists?

How many Christians would elect an Atheist politician?  Look in the mirror before you accuse me of hate of Christians.

I hate the coercive, rigid ideology your cult is based on.  My criticism of it comes out of my love for you and your well (mental) wellbeing.  I have made this very clear.  But you are far too gone in your delusion to see that.

I don't hate your Jesus, just like I don't hate any other fictional characters from other books or movies.

First, let me say that Christians are people. The whole idea of people converting to Christianity is based on people recognizing that they are faulty, and that they desire to do something about it. So, it isn't necessarily good people who become Christians. Often it is the worst of people who become Christians. But, if they remain Christians, they will change for the better.

Your problem with Christians is that you can't seem to distinguish between:
1. Good, sincere Christians;
2. Bad acting Christians, for whatever reasons;
3. People who say that they are Christians, but are really trying to use Christianity for power and personal gain.

It's the same with non-Christians. There are non-Christians in all three groups, as well.

Here is where you are mostly wrong. The word "Christ" is taken from the Greek. It is a Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah." The Hebrew Bible record shows the chain of events that goe back to the Beginning when God created the universe.

In the Garden, following the eating of the forbidden fruit, God walked in the Garden in "the cool of the day." But how can God walk? God is a Spirit? God walked in the form of the Messiah/Christ who transcends all space and time... because He is God as well as man. What does this mean? It means that Christianity was around before non-Christianity.

It also shows something about #3, above. It shows that people who say that they are non-Christians, often are really trying to use non-Christianity for power and personal gain. Often they do this by denying the fact that God exists, and interject into science the cult of evolution/billions-of-years-universe.

You really need to rethink your way of life, before it is too late for you, and you die in your sins.

[CoinCube]

C.S. Lewis describes the failure inherent and unavoidable in your approach.

The Poison of Subjectivism by C.S. Lewis
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

The question remains where do you get the objective morality from.  
...
Morality changes over time, whether you like it or not.  

Morality does not change over time whether you see it or not.

The only thing that changes is the vast almost endless distance between moral behavior and average human behavior. This incredible distance can grow marginally smaller or larger based on human actions, behaviors, and development.

Closing our eyes to the distance, denying it exists, or worse pretending that we have already completed the great journey because we "feel" it to be so does not change the objective reality. Such dilusions mearly drives us into a form of blind insanity.

You ask what the source is for this objective morality? From what or who's authority does it spring? I would respond that you have indeed highlighted the critical question. Indeed I further claim that this question is the most important most fundamental question of our existence. It is a question that can only be answered on an individual level. Only then is the answer internalized. Only then does it become reality for you. My answer as an abstract external thing would be of no use to you.

[CoinCube]

C.S. Lewis describes the failure inherent and unavoidable in your approach.

The Poison of Subjectivism by C.S. Lewis
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

The question remains where do you get the objective morality from.  
...
Morality changes over time, whether you like it or not.  

Morality does not change over time whether you see it or not.
...

Hmm, I think you are trolling me.  I see it, I am not sure why you don't.

Is it moral today to...

You see it because you have assumed it. You assume morality is subjective thus you interpret variations in human behavior as spontaneous meaningless variations of that subjectivity rather than an error filled progression towards objective truth.

We could discuss the morality of past times and criminal codes but you have left yourself no grounds to have such a discussion. You deny the existence of the very objective standard that we would need to judge those times.

I have tried to explain the toxicity of your view. I have highlighted how any philosophy that does not accept value as eternal and objective can lead only to ruin. At the very best it takes us to an utter tyranny of the opinion makers over all others. In all probability it takes us somewhere far worse then that.

You cannot see the danger and I appear to lack the eloquence or skill to open your eyes to the reality around you.

Thus our conversation reaches its natural conclusion.
 

[Astargath]

C.S. Lewis describes the failure inherent and unavoidable in your approach.

The Poison of Subjectivism by C.S. Lewis
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

The question remains where do you get the objective morality from.  
...
Morality changes over time, whether you like it or not.  

Morality does not change over time whether you see it or not.
...

Hmm, I think you are trolling me.  I see it, I am not sure why you don't.

Is it moral today to...

You see it because you have assumed it. You assume morality is subjective thus you interpret variations in human behavior as spontaneous meaningless variations of that subjectivity rather than an error filled progression towards objective truth.

We could discuss the morality of past times and criminal codes but you have left yourself no grounds to have such a discussion. You deny the existence of the very objective standard that we would need to judge those times.

I have tried to explain the toxicity of your view. I have highlighted how any philosophy that does not accept value as eternal and objective can lead only to ruin. At the very best it takes us to an utter tyranny of the opinion makers over all others. In all probability it takes us somewhere far worse then that.

You cannot see the danger and I appear to lack the eloquence or skill to open your eyes to the reality around you.

Thus our conversation reaches its natural conclusion.
 

Jesus what a load of horseshit and meaningless sentences. The point is easy to understand, the bible had immoral codes which means god doesn't exist or he is an idiot. It's a fairly simple argument and you can't get away with it. The bible is a simple simple book, the ''teachings'' in the bible are often extremely wrong, horrible or immoral, sometimes they are fine. Again, all of this proves that god doesn't exist.

[CoinCube]

I think I understand.  You think there is some inherent morality that is embedded in reality around us.

You don't know how to get to it, but you believe it is there and Jewish Bronze Age leaders had the wisdom to translate some of the objective morality for us.

In your view, the moral judgments that we pass (throughout history) are just erroneous interpretations of this objective morality. If we only knew what it was we would be behaving morally forever.

The problem for you is that there is no evidence that it is actually true.  On the contrary, morality is formed and shaped by the societies we live in.  I gave you plenty of examples of immoral actions that were based on Jewish moral law.

You now understand much of my position af_newbie. However, you are still holding onto a large misconception. You insist that this is a question of evidence. It is not. Here is how Kant explains it.

Categorical Imperative
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

The categorical imperative (German: kategorischer Imperativ) Introduced in Kant's 1785 Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals... may be defined as a way of evaluating motivations for action.

Sentient beings occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed up in an imperative, or ultimate commandment of reason, from which all duties and obligations derive. He defined an imperative as any proposition declaring a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary.

Hypothetical imperatives apply to someone who wishes to attain certain ends. For example:

* If I wish to quench my thirst, I must drink something.
* If I wish to pass this exam, I must study.

A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances and is justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

The capacity that underlies deciding what is moral is called pure practical reason, which is contrasted with pure reason (the capacity to know without having been shown) and mere practical reason (which allows us to interact with the world in experience).  Hypothetical imperatives tell us which means best achieve our ends. They do not, however, tell us which ends we should choose. The typical dichotomy in choosing ends is between ends that are "right" (e.g., helping someone) and those that are "good" (e.g., enriching oneself). Kant considered the "right" superior to the "good"; to him, the "good" was morally irrelevant. In Kant's view, a person cannot decide whether conduct is "right," or moral, through empirical means. Such judgments must be reached a priori, using pure practical reason.

Reason, separate from all empirical experience, can determine the principle according to which all ends can be determined as moral. It is this fundamental principle of moral reason that is known as the categorical imperative. Pure practical reason is the process of determining what ought to be done without reference to empirical contingent factors. Moral questions are determined independent of reference to the particular subject posing them. It is because morality is determined by pure practical reason, rather than particular empirical or sensuous factors, that morality is universally valid. This moral universalism has come to be seen as the distinctive aspect of Kant's moral philosophy and has had wide social impact in the legal and political concepts of human rights and equality.

Asking what the evidence shows you on this topic is nonsensical as this is not a question of evidence. Similarly stating that a particular society or individual is shaped by the rules of that society while certainly true is also irrelevant for such social contrivances also have no bearing on morality. The imperative is categorical.

[CoinCube]

And that is the fundamental difference between us.  I care about what I believe is actually true.  That is why I accept objective evidence to validate my worldview.  You don't.  You feel that some (fundamental) aspects of your worldview can be accepted without evidence and assumed to be correct and true.

If you don't require evidence you can pretty much come up with whatever irrational belief system your mind can dream up.

Sleep on it, eventually it will sink in.

You deny the existence of anything objective at all. You trust only your senses but have no grounding upon which to trust even those. Your reject the acccmulated wisdom of centuries to return to a relativism and skepticism that was embraced and then rejected millennium ago yet consider yourself an "enlightened man".

If you don't believe in truth then the "evidence" you find can be twisted into whatever conclusions you desire.

Sleep on it, eventually it will sink in.

[CoinCube]

Take care.

Goodbye af_newbie

[CoinCube]

"When asked how he would respond to there being a Next Life, and being asked By God why he did not believe, the famed intellectual, Sidney Hook, replied: "God, you didn't give me enough evidence". And there, sir, is an end on it."

The Great Divorce: The Intellectual
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10vnY-YR2JI

[BADecker]

"When asked how he would respond to there being a Next Life, and being asked By God why he did not believe, the famed intellectual, Sidney Hook, replied: "God, you didn't give me enough evidence". And there, sir, is an end on it."

The Great Divorce: The Intellectual
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10vnY-YR2JI

I would say: "Well, there were too many stories about you, all equally ridiculous.  People who claimed to be your representatives in all major religions behaved like common criminals (raping children and killing in your name), I did not want to be associated with them and their Gods.  Reports of you, your angels and devil completely disappeared after the cameras were invented.  You gave me my brain so I used it.  So in a way, I did not believe because of YOU."

BTW, if I were God I would not want to be around people who blindly worship me, without questioning my decisions, agreeing with me all the time for eternity.  

That would be BORING.

I would rather have some smart aleck Atheists at my side so that I can have some decent conversation with them.

Unless of course, God is like Trump, then all bets are off.

PS. God if you are reading this, please reply.  If you are not the first being to reply in this thread, I know you don't really exist or you don't give a flying puck about some apes on a tiny planet in the middle of nowhere.

God will reply to you in His own time. If you don't change, you won't like the reply.

[BADecker]

"When asked how he would respond to there being a Next Life, and being asked By God why he did not believe, the famed intellectual, Sidney Hook, replied: "God, you didn't give me enough evidence". And there, sir, is an end on it."

The Great Divorce: The Intellectual
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10vnY-YR2JI

I would say: "Well, there were too many stories about you, all equally ridiculous.  People who claimed to be your representatives in all major religions behaved like common criminals (raping children and killing in your name), I did not want to be associated with them and their Gods.  Reports of you, your angels and devil completely disappeared after the cameras were invented.  You gave me my brain so I used it.  So in a way, I did not believe because of YOU."

BTW, if I were God I would not want to be around people who blindly worship me, without questioning my decisions, agreeing with me all the time for eternity.  

That would be BORING.

I would rather have some smart aleck Atheists at my side so that I can have some decent conversation with them.

Unless of course, God is like Trump, then all bets are off.

PS. God if you are reading this, please reply.  If you are not the first being to reply in this thread, I know you don't really exist or you don't give a flying puck about some apes on a tiny planet in the middle of nowhere.

God will reply to you in His own time. If you don't change, you won't like the reply.

I think you just proved my point.

Your point doesn't have anything to do with God. It has to do with you playing God. God isn't going to be controlled by you.

[ioannafo]

I don't hate any religion but yeah, some facts and rituals are quite unfair. Almost all religions have different rules for men and women. I don't think any religion should differentiate between two genders.

My religion as well has some facts I don't agree with. "If someone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other cheek as well." "If one doesn't go to the Church on every Sunday, he is a sinner".

Religion shouldn't make someone lose their self respect or make anything compulsory for a person else they are called sinners. I'm not an atheist but do criticize religion at times.

I agree. And this is the point. The majority of religions were created back when the position of woman was defined by the body strength. If we want to keep being there and keep believing and keeping some of the ideals of our religions then equality is the most important thing in my mind.