Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[Astargath]

^^^ We've been over this long ago. All people know enough way down deep to make a choice for God or against Him. God holds this open for them.

The info is there. They make their choice.

Don't give yourself so little credit for having free will. You aren't being forced to be against God. You are choosing such. Since God wants you to have this freedom - so that it will be your own doing if you go to Hell - consider the evidence and proof for God, and make the right choice, so that you go to Heaven.

^^^ We've been over this long ago. All people know enough way down deep to make a choice for God or against Him. God holds this open for them.  (Baseless claim with no evidence provided)
 
The info is there. They make their choice.

Don't give yourself so little credit for having free will. You aren't being forced to be against God. You are choosing such. Since God wants you to have this freedom - so that it will be your own doing if you go to Hell - consider the evidence and proof for God, and make the right choice, so that you go to Heaven. (Having free will doesn't stop god from convincing me of his existence, for instance when I'm trying to teach you about science, am I taking your free will away? Of course not, am I taking your free will away if I convince you of ghost's existence? Nope. God could convince me if he wanted but he doesn't.)

[1713435775]

1713435775

[1713435775]

1713435775

[1713435775]

1713435775

[1713435775]

1713435775

[BADecker]

^^^ God has shown you that He exists in such away that is not limiting your ability to not accept it. You should be thanking God for the freedom He is giving you.

[Astargath]

^^^ God has shown you that He exists in such away that is not limiting your ability to not accept it. You should be thanking God for the freedom He is giving you.

If god did that, why do I not believe in him then? I would gladly accept god and I would like a god to exist, I was a believer so I clearly know what it is to believe, I simply cannot believe anymore because he hasn't shown me enough evidence. If he wanted to, he would have convinced me already, why hasn't he?

[BADecker]

^^^ God has shown you that He exists in such away that is not limiting your ability to not accept it. You should be thanking God for the freedom He is giving you.

If god did that, why do I not believe in him then? I would gladly accept god and I would like a god to exist, I was a believer so I clearly know what it is to believe, I simply cannot believe anymore because he hasn't shown me enough evidence. If he wanted to, he would have convinced me already, why hasn't he?

Oh, oh! Here's a possible problem in your case. I guess you are right about you not being able to believe and be saved (provided that you are telling the truth about being a believer at one time, and now not). You had your chance, but you locked yourself into unbelief. Hebrews 6:4-8:

4It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6and who have fallen c away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

Was nice knowing you, kid.

[BADecker]

^^^ Atheism is simply a religion with a different focus. Like as there might be many denominations of a particular religion, so there are denominations of atheism. The atheism denominations, however, usually have atheism as a secondary point in the denomination gatherings. That's why you don't find atheism churches.

Much of the atheism "dogma" belongs to the personal atheism religion of each of its individual members, whereas many other religions direct the dogma of their members from the top down.

In other words, atheists are people. And as people, they do things that people do. Some of them exist just to "evangelize" people away from other religions. It's simply the way they are. It's their personal form or "dogma" of their personal atheism religious denomination.

[Astargath]

^^^ Atheism is simply a religion with a different focus. Like as there might be many denominations of a particular religion, so there are denominations of atheism. The atheism denominations, however, usually have atheism as a secondary point in the denomination gatherings. That's why you don't find atheism churches.

Much of the atheism "dogma" belongs to the personal atheism religion of each of its individual members, whereas many other religions direct the dogma of their members from the top down.

In other words, atheists are people. And as people, they do things that people do. Some of them exist just to "evangelize" people away from other religions. It's simply the way they are. It's their personal form or "dogma" of their personal atheism religious denomination.

One thing is for sure, though, atheism does not have a god and does not worship gods either, if you want to call it a religion because it suits you, totally fine but there is certainly a huge difference between atheism and Christianity or any other god-based religion.

[BADecker]

^^^ Atheism is simply a religion with a different focus. Like as there might be many denominations of a particular religion, so there are denominations of atheism. The atheism denominations, however, usually have atheism as a secondary point in the denomination gatherings. That's why you don't find atheism churches.

Much of the atheism "dogma" belongs to the personal atheism religion of each of its individual members, whereas many other religions direct the dogma of their members from the top down.

In other words, atheists are people. And as people, they do things that people do. Some of them exist just to "evangelize" people away from other religions. It's simply the way they are. It's their personal form or "dogma" of their personal atheism religious denomination.

One thing is for sure, though, atheism does not have a god and does not worship gods either, if you want to call it a religion because it suits you, totally fine but there is certainly a huge difference between atheism and Christianity or any other god-based religion.

One thing's for sure. Atheists won't admit that they are their own god(s).

[Astargath]

^^^ Atheism is simply a religion with a different focus. Like as there might be many denominations of a particular religion, so there are denominations of atheism. The atheism denominations, however, usually have atheism as a secondary point in the denomination gatherings. That's why you don't find atheism churches.

Much of the atheism "dogma" belongs to the personal atheism religion of each of its individual members, whereas many other religions direct the dogma of their members from the top down.

In other words, atheists are people. And as people, they do things that people do. Some of them exist just to "evangelize" people away from other religions. It's simply the way they are. It's their personal form or "dogma" of their personal atheism religious denomination.

One thing is for sure, though, atheism does not have a god and does not worship gods either, if you want to call it a religion because it suits you, totally fine but there is certainly a huge difference between atheism and Christianity or any other god-based religion.

One thing's for sure. Atheists won't admit that they are their own god(s).

That makes no sense, as usual.

[vladimirhf]

most atheists hate their heritage and rebel against their families. fundamentalists from one religion often project their own shadows on individuals of another religion. hate and love are sides of same thing. you can only hate something important to you.

[BADecker]

^^^ Actually, hate is the absence of everything. Love is the abundance of everything.

[sirazimuth]

necro-bump.... (because why not, and I've had a couple)......

Actually truth be told, stories like this make me like religion, not hate it.....

So Jesus and Moses were hanging out in heaven, totally bored (what a surprise)
So Jesus says "dude, I'm sick of this shit, lets go downstairs to earth where the real action is and have some fun.
Lets go do miracles!"
Moses with a gleam in his eye, replies "oh I'm there dude! lets do it man, I still have my chops! So, how 'bout we head to the old holy land .?
Maybe even find a talking bush and set it on fire! But I ain't wandering in the desert for forty years! It's too frikkin hot and these sandals give me blisters."
So... (you always start a good story with "so" these days.  "AND SO" if its religious babble...I mean Bible nonsense)....  
So, Jesus is like "cool bro, how 'bout you grab that big ole staff of yours and you part the Red Sea just for shitz 'n giggles!?"
So, Moses is like "oh yeah, and then you walk across the water, and maybe even leap over the big ole chasm I make!
oh, and don't forget to to turn the water into a couple a jugs of wine cuz we're gonna partaaaay brother!! (none of that Riunite shit though)
"Sounds like a plan my man!" replies the true messiah himself.
AND SO.. They headed down to earth and they arrive at holy land beach.
AND SO... Moses turns towards the Red Sea, and lifts his staff on high, and spreads his arms to the heavens.
AND SO... The angels began to sing and the gentle sea breeze turned into a raging gale, and the waters of the Red Sea were parted.
AND THEN... Moses lowered his arms,
AND...with a smug grin on his face, turned back to face Jesus. OK dude, your turn, lets see you do your thing!
AND SO... with a flourish of his robes, Jesus steps onto the waters of the Red Sea and begins to stride across without so much as a ripple.
 "Check it out bro! now I'm gonna walk out on water, run and jump over the giant part in the Red Sea you just made! woo hoo "
But to Moses' bewilderment, halfway across the water, just as Jesus gets up to leaping speed, with each step taken, he slowly starts sinking into the water!
Moses watches with horror as his buddy, the Savior, the son of God himself, the true Messiah, is now splashing and flailing helplessly in the drink!
Poor Jesus begins to choke, while the waves toss him around, like a waterlogged rag doll.
AND SO...Moses, upon seeing his side kick, the almighty Messiah, clearly in trouble, swims out to save him from his watery grave.
AND....Moses drags Jesus, using the lifeguard hold, back thru the now un-parted choppy Red Sea. (he had to drop his staff, you see)
AND.... Moses lays The Savior out on the beach, "Hey Jesus" says an enlightened Moses, as he looked down
on his buddy on his back with arms outstretched no less, "I got an idea...now you can make a sand Angel!".
AND SO...Jesus flapped his arms and legs in the sand and HE DID make a sand angel!
AND SO...Between gasps and hack-ups of mouthfuls of salt water, Jesus splutters
"Moses I'm saved! You SAVED me... Praise the lord!... oh wait... I AM the lord!....damn it bro, what went wrong?"

 Moses slapped a consoling hand on Jesus' shoulder and said,
 "Don't worry about it, dude. Last time you tried it, you didn't have holes in your feet.".....

PA DA BOOM PSHHHHH.....


"hey, nice sand angel though!".....

[BADecker]

Why do Atheists Hate Religion?


Weak atheists don't necessarily hate religion. Strong atheists hate religion because the stronger the atheist, the more he can't get away from his atheism religion.

[Cnut237]

Weak atheists don't necessarily hate religion. Strong atheists hate religion because the stronger the atheist, the more he can't get away from his atheism religion.

I would say that atheism can be scientific, in the sense that you find the world-model that contains God to be unsatisfactory due to an absence of evidence, or just logically unconvincing. But an atheism that is based on the unproveable conviction that "there is no God", is perhaps less scientific, as it's founded on an ideological position.

My personal position I suppose is that I believe that God doesn't exist, but can't prove it, although the absence of evidence is overwhelmingly strong... but this is a secondary consideration, because I also believe that no-one should worship anything (a deity or otherwise), so even if God was proven to exist, he/she/it shouldn't be worshipped, and religion should not be followed.

[arielbit]

atheists love religion.

atheists love to have justice "in next life for the oppressed", atheists love to look forward to "good things that is about to come/heaven"...here's the catch. nobody can prove it will happen or it exists.

the human mind fears the unknown, if you control the unknown with a narrative(religion) then you control the fear. you control the fear, you control the human mind   i bet there are/were people behind religion/s that are atheists.

[BADecker]

Weak atheists don't necessarily hate religion. Strong atheists hate religion because the stronger the atheist, the more he can't get away from his atheism religion.

I would say that atheism can be scientific, in the sense that you find the world-model that contains God to be unsatisfactory due to an absence of evidence, or just logically unconvincing. But an atheism that is based on the unproveable conviction that "there is no God", is perhaps less scientific, as it's founded on an ideological position.

My personal position I suppose is that I believe that God doesn't exist, but can't prove it, although the absence of evidence is overwhelmingly strong... but this is a secondary consideration, because I also believe that no-one should worship anything (a deity or otherwise), so even if God was proven to exist, he/she/it shouldn't be worshipped, and religion should not be followed.

Science is based on what can be understood and observed of the present and the past. Solid archaeological science only goes back about 5,000 years. That which claims to go back further is based on assumptions and/or flawed ideas of how to measure time.

For example. If carbon dating C-14 were not in existence prior to 5,000 years ago, and suddenly appeared around the world in vast quantities, say, from a meteorite dumping it onto the earth, who would know it? But it would change the whole C-14 quantity on earth over the years so that we get the readings we have today. Yet the age of the earth would not be known.

In a similar way, if God created the earth in 6 literal days with man being the last of his creation, wouldn't it make sense for Him to have not only made the stars to be where we think that they are, but also to make all the light in between them and us - done in the 4th day as the Bible says? It wouldn't make sense for God to put all those stars up there, tell mankind that they were there, and Adam and his wife and first kids have to wait 4 years for the first light from one of them to get here. And further, the effects that the stars have on the earth would have been propagated a the speed of light (probably), making whatever benefit the stars are to earth to not be here yet.

In fact, if such were the circumstance, we would only see light from a handful of stars today... stars that were within about 7,500 light years from earth.

The point is, science doesn't know. They have built stories around their own assumptions, and then some of them and the media have popularized the stories as truth.

[Cnut237]

Solid archaeological science only goes back about 5,000 years. That which claims to go back further is based on assumptions

But religion is based entirely on assumptions, with no evidence. Isn't that what faith is? I suppose you could argue that faith is tied up with an inherent feeling or sense of God, but science would argue that feelings, intuition etc., have a biological basis.

One big difference is that that science is falsifiable, it can be proven wrong. That is how science advances, through the testing of hypotheses. But religion won't accept even the idea that elements of it might possibly be untrue or imperfect, it reminds me of a child who, on being told not to do something, puts his hands over his ears and sings 'I can't hear you'.

For example. If carbon dating C-14 were not in existence prior to 5,000 years ago, and suddenly appeared around the world in vast quantities, say, from a meteorite dumping it onto the earth, who would know it? But it would change the whole C-14 quantity on earth over the years so that we get the readings we have today. Yet the age of the earth would not be known.

Radiocarbon calibration means that dating is accurate to around 50,000 years. I'm not sure it can be taken back much further given the half life of 14C is only around 5k years. But it would only be used to date biological specimens anyway, not the Earth itself. We can use radio dating of isotopes of elements with much longer half-lives to determine, for example, the age of rocks... the Earth is around 4.6b years old.

[BADecker]

Solid archaeological science only goes back about 5,000 years. That which claims to go back further is based on assumptions

But religion is based entirely on assumptions, with no evidence. Isn't that what faith is? I suppose you could argue that faith is tied up with an inherent feeling or sense of God, but science would argue that feelings, intuition etc., have a biological basis.

One big difference is that that science is falsifiable, it can be proven wrong. That is how science advances, through the testing of hypotheses. But religion won't accept even the idea that elements of it might possibly be untrue or imperfect, it reminds me of a child who, on being told not to do something, puts his hands over his ears and sings 'I can't hear you'.

Here is what you are forgetting... Israel. Israel is the only nation that was the superpower, off and on for well over 1,000 years, of its Ancient Israel days. Then it was destroyed for about 1,900 years. Now it's back to being almost a superpower, even though it is a dinky little tiny thing in the east end of the Mediterranean Sea.

Why is this important? It's important like all the court cases in the US and its States. As the US court cases are deemed to have really happened, so the Old Testament is deemed by Israeli scholars to have really happened. The O.T. is the true record of the past, just like all the bound copies of US court record judgments are deemed to be truth in the US, even though you can't talk to any of the dead judges from the 1800s.

In other words, the Old Testament is eye witness reports of what happened back to the beginning of Creation. The reason why you don't believe this is because you haven't studied about the kind of nation the nation of Israel really is... that they wrote their history and "court" records as they did. And part of the reason why you won't study it is that you don't want to be convinced of the fact that God created the universe.

For example. If carbon dating C-14 were not in existence prior to 5,000 years ago, and suddenly appeared around the world in vast quantities, say, from a meteorite dumping it onto the earth, who would know it? But it would change the whole C-14 quantity on earth over the years so that we get the readings we have today. Yet the age of the earth would not be known.

Radiocarbon calibration means that dating is accurate to around 50,000 years. I'm not sure it can be taken back much further given the half life of 14C is only around 5k years. But it would only be used to date biological specimens anyway, not the Earth itself. We can use radio dating of isotopes of elements with much longer half-lives to determine, for example, the age of rocks... the Earth is around 4.6b years old.

Carbon dating is based on the way C-14 forms in the atmosphere, and is taken up by the plants as they absorb this C-14. The grand assumption is that it always happened the way it does now. But nobody knows enough about the distant past to KNOW that it happened this same way in the past. If it didn't, the ripples of C-14 that we measure could easily have been formed in greater or lesser quantities, thereby upsetting the whole carbon dating apple cart.

For example, most scientists know that there was a flood, the one that religious people call Noah's flood. The thing that they disagree on is whether or not it was a worldwide flood, or just a local one. However, they all agree that even if it was a local one, it was a tremendously gigantic local area.

The point? The Flood was large enough that it could have changed the atmosphere in such a way that changed the making of C-14. Perhaps there wasn't any C-14 on earth prior to that flood. An assumption, yes. Just like the assumption that C-14 was always made the same way that it is today. Nature plays with us, or is it God showing us that He is the only One Who knows.

[Cnut237]

the Old Testament is eye witness reports of what happened back to the beginning of Creation. The reason why you don't believe this is because you haven't studied about the kind of nation the nation of Israel really is

My background is in physics. I value results obtained through documented, logical and reproducible scientific experimentation... which after all is the basis of the modern world. Fantastical storytelling from thousands of years ago, which has been filtered through countless generations, and which lacks even the slightest scrap of evidence is, to me, somewhat less reliable.

Carbon dating is based on the way C-14 forms in the atmosphere, and is taken up by the plants as they absorb this C-14. The grand assumption is that it always happened the way it does now. But nobody knows enough about the distant past to KNOW that it happened this same way in the past. If it didn't, the ripples of C-14 that we measure could easily have been formed in greater or lesser quantities, thereby upsetting the whole carbon dating apple cart.

Carbon dating is extremely accurate, and is corroborated by results obtained from other methods, for example counting tree rings, which is proven to be consistent with carbon dating, back to I think around 8,000 years so far. But if we are talking about the age of the Earth, then the radiometric dating method would of course not use carbon. Radioactive decay is a known and well-understood process.

[BADecker]

the Old Testament is eye witness reports of what happened back to the beginning of Creation. The reason why you don't believe this is because you haven't studied about the kind of nation the nation of Israel really is

My background is in physics. I value results obtained through documented, logical and reproducible scientific experimentation... which after all is the basis of the modern world. Fantastical storytelling from thousands of years ago, which has been filtered through countless generations, and which lacks even the slightest scrap of evidence is, to me, somewhat less reliable.

Carbon dating is based on the way C-14 forms in the atmosphere, and is taken up by the plants as they absorb this C-14. The grand assumption is that it always happened the way it does now. But nobody knows enough about the distant past to KNOW that it happened this same way in the past. If it didn't, the ripples of C-14 that we measure could easily have been formed in greater or lesser quantities, thereby upsetting the whole carbon dating apple cart.

Carbon dating is extremely accurate, and is corroborated by results obtained from other methods, for example counting tree rings, which is proven to be consistent with carbon dating, back to I think around 8,000 years so far. But if we are talking about the age of the Earth, then the radiometric dating method would of course not use carbon. Radioactive decay is a known and well-understood process.

Let's just say that it's 8,000 years.

Well, we don't have anybody who has gone back to even 5,000 years to count tree rings, and to observe them being laid down one per year. We don't know that trees back at 5,000 years didn't lay down 10 rings a year for a 500 year period, or maybe, only 1 ring every 10 years for a 500 year period. And we don't know if the cosmic energy that makes C-14 wasn't the cause for lesser or greater C-14 AND lesser or greater numbers of tree rings per year for certain time periods.

Because of this, the carbon dating science is all assumptions. If scientists and books said, "We assume, based on da da da," It would be okay. But the emphasis is that this science is fact when it's only assumption. Such makes it to not be science at all, but rather, fable... with emphasis on the Bull.

In fact, that's how scientists treat a whole lot of things. They form a hypothesis, and find a way that the hypothesis could be real. But they ignore or pooh, pooh all kinds of things that show that reality could easily be a whole lot different. To see that this is true, take a look at some of the other things that Graham Hancock shows us at https://grahamhancock.com/.

[af_newbie]

the Old Testament is eye witness reports of what happened back to the beginning of Creation. The reason why you don't believe this is because you haven't studied about the kind of nation the nation of Israel really is

My background is in physics. I value results obtained through documented, logical and reproducible scientific experimentation... which after all is the basis of the modern world. Fantastical storytelling from thousands of years ago, which has been filtered through countless generations, and which lacks even the slightest scrap of evidence is, to me, somewhat less reliable.

Carbon dating is based on the way C-14 forms in the atmosphere, and is taken up by the plants as they absorb this C-14. The grand assumption is that it always happened the way it does now. But nobody knows enough about the distant past to KNOW that it happened this same way in the past. If it didn't, the ripples of C-14 that we measure could easily have been formed in greater or lesser quantities, thereby upsetting the whole carbon dating apple cart.

Carbon dating is extremely accurate, and is corroborated by results obtained from other methods, for example counting tree rings, which is proven to be consistent with carbon dating, back to I think around 8,000 years so far. But if we are talking about the age of the Earth, then the radiometric dating method would of course not use carbon. Radioactive decay is a known and well-understood process.

Let's just say that it's 8,000 years.

Well, we don't have anybody who has gone back to even 5,000 years to count tree rings, and to observe them being laid down one per year. We don't know that trees back at 5,000 years didn't lay down 10 rings a year for a 500 year period, or maybe, only 1 ring every 10 years for a 500 year period. And we don't know if the cosmic energy that makes C-14 wasn't the cause for lesser or greater C-14 AND lesser or greater numbers of tree rings per year for certain time periods.

Because of this, the carbon dating science is all assumptions. If scientists and books said, "We assume, based on da da da," It would be okay. But the emphasis is that this science is fact when it's only assumption. Such makes it to not be science at all, but rather, fable... with emphasis on the Bull.

In fact, that's how scientists treat a whole lot of things. They form a hypothesis, and find a way that the hypothesis could be real. But they ignore or pooh, pooh all kinds of things that show that reality could easily be a whole lot different. To see that this is true, take a look at some of the other things that Graham Hancock shows us at https://grahamhancock.com/.

Carbon 14 half-life is 5730 years.  Carbon-14 dating is reliable to about 3 half-lives or about 18,000 years. Isotopes of other elements can also be used to estimate fossil ages beyond 20,000 years.  Potassium 40 half-life is 1.28 billion years.

BTW, tree rings mark the end of summer.  See summerwood/latewood.

For a tree on this planet to grow 10 rings a year, you would have to have an environment with 10 summers/fall/winter/springs a year, and a 10 fold increase in Sun activity, LOL.  You are basically talking nonsense.