Why I'm an atheist

[Trading]

        

                        Why I'm an atheist



   For normal forum standards, this is a huge post, based partly on previous posts I made. If you don't have the time or patience, just read the titles in blue, this probably will make you read also the bold ones.

   This is a text in progress. If you post a comment with another strong point, I might add it with credits to you, if you are the original author or alternatively to him.

   Taking in account that knowledge should be free and this text's goal, feel free to use any part of it or change it as you please without need to give any credit.

  We are just a pattern of organization of a bunch of atoms that, by pure environmental circumstances and chance, gained consciousnesses; it would be astonishing that, only because of this awareness, we were destined for a greater fate than the other common bunch of atoms.

   We are going to return to our natural state, our only real "permanent home", where we already spent almost an eternity (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1432165.msg17423455#msg17423455), before being born: nothingness.

   There is no use to invent a helping imaginary "friend" who will offer you immortality.

   It's absurd to ruin your life (a lucky but tiny oasis of awareness that exists between two almost infinite deserts of nothingness) by following absurd or immoral rules invented by primitive people of the Bronze Age which have no relation whatsoever with the happiness of other people.

   Face your destiny in the eyes and live proud for having no leach, but the one imposed by your fellow human beings organized as a society (supposedly) for the benefice of all.

   However, I don't have anything against a sincere believer. You are my fellow human being who share with me our finite condition. You just found a different (erroneous, from my perspective) way to deal with it.

   The arguments presented were written thinking on the three main monotheist religions and, especially, Christianism. But most of them apply also to all other religions.

   My goal isn't offending you, but just to induce you to question the roots and logic of your faith.

   I also don't really want to convince you to be an atheist, but just a skeptical or, at least, someone with doubts.

   There isn't anything more dangerous for you, and for others, than you being absolutly certain about something like your religious beliefs.

   Those absolute beliefs can change completely your philosophy, Ethics and life goals and not for the good.

   It's when religious people start being fanatics. They know the "truth", so, from my perspective, they are literally deadly wrong.

   It's when they are ready to start killing themselves or others for their beliefs or, at least, persecute people with different beliefs or without religious beliefs.

   As long as you have doubts, you can say you are still a religious person, but you will be a safer person for yourself and for others.

   In reality, you will live this life like if it was the only one you have (see point 11). You will give it more value and will be more tolerant with others.


   1) All the hundreds of religions/sects and their multiple absolute contradictions seem to be plenty evidence that all gods are human creations.

   The same conclusion can be based on the known influences of ancient myths and religions on the current main religions [the flood, the virgin birth, the resurrection after 3 days, Christmas day, Sunday (day of the Sun, the roman god Sol Invictus) as the holiday and not the Sabbath, etc.].

   Gods are just one of the illusions mankind uses in order to be able to deal with the idea of the inevitability of death. Humans created a god and an afterlife mainly (this also stimulate cooperation and obedience) because they feel anguish about dying. (Freud, Thoughts for the times on war and death, 1915, Part II)

   Even in the religions that claim to worship the same god, the contradictions are overwhelming.

   As you know, both Christians and Muslims say they worship the Torah's god, Yahweh. Islam says Jesus was an important prophet, but not the son of god. And Christians simple reject that Muhammad was a prophet. But the Qur'an says that its god is the god that sent Abraham, Moses and Jesus.

   But Yahweh initially was just a god in the middle of others. Most Jews, even during David times (about 1000 BC) and after, kept praying to other gods of the Canaanites (Semitic people comprising the Phoenicians, the Jews and some other peoples of the Levant).

   There is controversy, but Yahweh has been identified with EL, the supreme god of the Canaanites, that had one or two wives and an extensive number of sons (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)#Hebrew_Bible). Or, initially, with one of his sons: sometimes, Baal (the confusion was easy, because Baal means Lord; clearly, later, the Torah fights this identification, by ridiculing Baal), sometimes Hadad, sometimes a different son.

   In some of the Jewish holy books, we can still find several traces of this evolution, with references to a council of the gods presided by EL/Yahweh (Psalm 82:1 and 6; 1 Kings 22:19) or to different gods (Deuteronomy 32:8–9) (see, a summary in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Council#Hebrew).

   Well, the Greeks were influenced by the Phoenicians and copied their gods, with different names. El was Uranus, the father of all gods (or sometimes Cronus, since some mythology says El was not the original god, but rather Elioun), that was deposed by his son, Cronus. Cronus was deposed by Zeus. The Romans used the same Gods (Caelus as Uranus; Saturn as Cronus and Jupiter as Zeus).

   So, are the believers on the three main religions praying to Uranus (Caelus) or even to Cronus (Saturn)?

   But, even if they are considered the same god, just compare the vengeful and jealous god of the Torah with the loving and forgiven god invented by Jesus.

   The contradictions are so big between them that some scholars (like Marcion of Sinope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism) and christian sects (like the Gnostics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism#Dualism_and_monism) even defended that Yahweh, the Torah's god, was a different god or even the devil.

   Some of the most fracturing religious issues, like the so-called divine nature of Jesus, or its degree, divided drastically Christians and were finally settled by bishops on majority voting, under pressure from Constantine to reach an agreement.

   If Constantine, as roman emperor, was considered divine, how could Jesus be less than him? Of course, we can't find any evidence on the Gospels for that (not even on John's Gospel), but they couldn't care less for this detail.

   Most Christian churches defend the Trinity, that the father, the son (Jesus) and the holy ghost are not exactly one and the same, but are part of god. But these churches argue that this is perfectly compatible with a monotheism.

   Basically, Jesus on the Olive Garden and on the Cross wasn't exactly talking with him self, but something similar.

   Ancient Greeks could argue that they also had a father, Uranus/Cronus/Zeus, and their sons and parents, all part of a divine family. That the difference was of grade, and not nature, and so that they too were basically monotheists in this flexible sense, because they too had a supreme god, he just had a bigger family.

   But what all these contradictions, but also influences and slow evolution, point out is that gods are a human creation.

      In the end, on most cases, people have a specific religion not because of any personal journey of discovery, but because of the teachings of their parents. So, their parents are the criteria of truth.

   With all these different gods and interpretations, are all the believers on different religions or sects lying or mistaken, but you?


   2) There are fundamental issues about which we still don't know enough, but ignorance isn't reason to believe in any god.

   We still don't know what is the ultimate origin of the source of the "physical stuff" that composes the Universe, the quantum fields that created all matter (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1221052.msg14388816#msg14388816 on the theory of an Universe from nothing), or even the exact mechanism that created life from matter, but our ancestors also said that the gods were the creators of thunders and lightening.

   Actually, none of the main religions says what was his god's origin.

   If god existed, he would ask with anxiety "Who created me?".


   3) Religious books are full of immoral rules. Some of those are so hideous that they can't seriously be considered the word of a god. For instance, "for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me". Exodus, 20.5.

   
   This horrible statement is part of the Ten Commandments! And it's stated also in Exodus 34:7; Deuteronomy 5:9; Numbers 14:18.

        But we can find even more heinous moral rules: "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD." Deuteronomy 23:2.

   The examples are innumerable: acceptance of genocide/extermination of women and children (Joshua 6:21; Judges 21:10; Numbers 31:7-18), killing of babies (Isaiah 13:16), massive rape (Numbers 31:18; Deuteronomy 20:10-14), slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46), death penalty for the most banal deeds, including sexual acts between consenting adults, forced marriage (Judges 21:21-23), women sacrifice or abuse (Judges 11:29-40 isn't clear), cruel punishments [cannibalism of children (Leviticus 26:29), burning alive (Joshua 7:15), stoning, etc.], sexual discrimination (Genesis 3:16; Leviticus 27:3-7), etc..

   I confirmed all of these quotes. I didn't copied the actual text to avoid increasing this post too much, but I might do that. Even if sometimes there are divergences on translation or interpretation, I tried to use clear examples. See for more http://www.evilbible.com; https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1367154.0.

   But a decisive one is enough to dismiss the Bible as a "sacred" source of moral precepts.

   The reason for these appalling statements seems simple: since all religious texts were made by humans, their moral standards stopped in time. But human morality evolved.

   The sociological reason of the importance of believing in the "right god" is human power.

   It's absurd saying that a good man will "burn in hell" (let's forget about punishing also his descendants, even if they are good and believe in the "right god"!) like an evil one, only because under an "honest mistake" he worships the "wrong god", unless we see the issue under the eyes of the humans who invented Yahweh.

   They needed to say those terrible things in order to consolidate their power over their fellow human beings by fear and to destroy competition from other religions.

   Do you really want to govern your life with the morality of Bronze Age people? (Christopher Hitchens).


   4) Religious books are full of myths and stories created by ignorant people and liars. These stories were simple created to cement power. A "holy" man can't answer to a question: I don't know; he has to invent something.

   

   Many of them (besides the order of creation of things, evolution, the creation of humans, etc., "By the seventh day God had finished the work": Genesis 2; see controversial attempts to make this compatible with science: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html) have been refuted by Science in terms that remove all credibility to those stories.

   Isn't all the "word of god"? How can it be wrong?

   A religious person only has two options: defend that everything in his religious text is true, making a fool of himself; or pick some things and reject others as simple metaphors in unconvincing terms.

   They were written and read as true stories across history. People were burned for denying them (remember Giordano Bruno among many others).
   
   Calling them metaphors is just an artifice. Why wasn't the metaphor made accurately even on irrelevant details, like the order of creations of things? Would it lose its meaning for being correct?

   Isn't obvious that it's wrong because its authors knew nothing about what they were writing about?
 

   5) All evidence points to the conclusion that the idea that our consciousnesses survives death is false.

   On the issue of the "soul", taking in account the recent research on the brain, doesn't make sense to say that the human brain, that is the most complex system we know on nature, doesn't create consciousnesses.

   The evidence we have point clearly in the positive sense, even if there are still much investigation to be done on the issue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Neural_correlates).

   If that wasn't the case, we couldn't explain why your "soul" is affected by a trauma to the brain. Why when we pass out, our "soul" passes out too.

   Why someone with mental problems can in certain cases became better by a surgical intervention in the brain or by medication that changes the chemical balance in the brain.

   If there was a "soul" independent of the brain and the brain was just the link between the body and the "soul", all diseases/damages of the brain wouldn't affect our ability to still be aware and to think.

   Therefore, once the brain was again cured, we should be able to remember what happened when we were "out". But we don't.

        Actually, it was found the on/off button of consciousness. By stimulating a part of the brain, anyone will lose consciousness automatically. Which only supports the conclusion that it's the brain who creates and controls consciousnesses. (see https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762-700-consciousness-on-off-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain/).

   But if it is the brain that creates the consciousnesses and allows reasoning, it's absurd to say that we will still be able to keep doing it as a "spirit" after the brain is dead.

   Actually, the idea that there is a soul that survives the body is recent on the Jewish religion, adopted by the other two main religions. Ancient Hebrews didn't believe in the afterlife [even if that idea was already present on the Cro-Magnon, more than 40,000 years ago, and, possible, even more than 400,000-200,000 years ago on the Homo heidelbergensis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis#Social_behavior) and on the Neanderthals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_behavior#Burial_practices; also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_religion)].

   And the first Hebrews that defended it argued this occur under the form of the Resurrection of the dead in flesh and blood and not of any "soul".

   Even today, the confusion on all the Christian churches about what happen when we die is immense.

   Some say that our soul survives; others say it's our body that is resurrected in the judgement day, same mix both versions in an absurd way (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_eschatology#Resurrection_of_the_dead).

   Of course, they never knew anything about what will happen and their inventions, like all invented narratives, changed with time.

   The so-called situations of people "dead" that were taken back to life and remember seeing things are just reactions of the neurons to the near death situation.

   However, Brain activity measurable on an EGG only disappears after 20-40 seconds without oxygen/blood flow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death).

   This time is enough to leave memories of hallucinations (some people see Jesus, lights, out-of-body experiences, etc.) caused by chemical reactions provoked by a dying brain. Actually, the hallucinations probably start before the complete stop of the supply of oxygen. And in that situation, 40 seconds of hallucinations might seem minutes to the near death individual.

   The same hallucinations can be felt using chemicals like ketamine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_use_of_ketamine#Non-lethal_manifestations), Psilocybin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin), Phencyclidine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phencyclidine) or Dextromethorphan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextromethorphan).

        Moreover, since the "soul" has to interact with the body to control it, the "soul" couldn't be a pure metaphysical “substance”, it should be physical, composed of particles/energy (which is the same, as Einstein said) or it couldn’t “command the body”.

        The so-called dualism, arguing for a main difference of nature between mind (or soul) and body, imply a direct violation of the Second law of thermodynamics [see, for instance,
Harold Morowitz, The Mind Body Problem and The Second Law of Thermodynamics (http://newdualism.org/papers/H.Morowitz/Morowitz-BandP-1987.pdf)].

        Thus, as a system of physical particles, the soul would be subject necessarily to an increase of entropy and therefore to decay and dissolute on smaller particles: on other words, to death.

        Moreover, at least until now, the CERN's Large Hadron Collider didn’t find any particle compatible with any "soul".

        Some even say that if this particle wasn’t already found, it won’t ever be because, taking in account the levels of energy at which the body works, it had to showed up by now (http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/771662/Brian-Cox-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-GHOST-LHC).

   How dare you to believe that your "soul" will survive the death of your brain based on what we know?

   Is mixing your aspirations and your fear from death (read my https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1221052) with reality.

   Any prudent person would say, at best, I don't know, I'm not shore... but believers just say, I know I have an immortal soul...

   Yeah, shore: "Want to know what happens after death? Go look at some dead things." (Dave Enyeart)


   6) Homo Sapiens has existed for 300,000 years. Why the "true/only" god only appeared a few thousands years ago? Why did he left us unguided all this time?

   The homo sapiens have existed at least for 200,000 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omo_remains) or, as recently discovered, probably by almost 350,000 (https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v546/n7657/full/nature22335.html).

   But the god invented by the main monotheist religions decided to let us without guidance for more than 194,000 years? Only decided to manifest his existence to Abraham? or, at best, to Adam and Eve a few thousand years ago (Christopher Hitchens).

   The main holy books don't mention older prophets or divine interventions.



   7) Religions can't explain evil or even natural disasters. Main religions say that god is omniscient (he knows everything, including the future). Therefore, he knew that Hitler would do all the things he done. But he created the chain of events that allowed Hitler to be born in that exactly moment. By changing a day he would make a brother or sister of Hitler to be born instead. He is responsible for everything Hitler done as one of us is legally responsible for knowingly creating a chain of events that will provoke the death of other people

   Seeing how unfair (ex. some children die of hunger or hunger related diseases and others have diseases caused by eating too much), and many times evil (think on all the wars and on most crimes), the world is, if god existed he would have to be one of two kind of persons (Dostoyevsky, The Karamazov Brothers; Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus):

   a) A cruel being: because if he is all powerful and omniscient, when he created the world, he knew how horrible at times it would be.

   Don't tell me about the original sin: kids guilty for the sins of their parents, is that divine justice?

   Don't also tell me about the "devil". No religious person can coherently explain how god is omnipotent and still lets the devil exist.

   Moreover, if the devil is a "former" angel, it was god that created him. If the devil isn't an angel, even so, god created everything, so he created the devil.

   Well, since he is omniscient, when he created the devil, he knew how evil he was going to be.

   Denying that the devil exists and evil is created by evil humans' free will won't really help you.

   Human free will can't explain natural disasters.

   But it also can't justify human evil.

   When god (allegedly) created humankind, he already knew who would be the ancestors of Hitler and knew that Hitler would born on 20 April 1889 and do all the things he did (Psalm 139:16 "Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be").

   Any insignificant change on the current of events would avoid the existence of Hitler (a few seconds could be the difference that would allow a brother to be born created by a different spermatozoid and not Hitler).

   But god decided to create his ancestors exactly the way that allowed Hitler to be born.

   So in the end, god planed and created indirectly Hitler with full conscience about whom he was creating (see also Marshall Brain, http://godisimaginary.com/i6.htm).

   He is guilty for everything Hitler did as an individual is guilty for creating a chain of events with the clear conscience that those events will necessarily provoke a catastrophe or even any damage

   Don't tell me that everyone killed in World War II were sinners, including all the children.

   If god existed, he had to be a cruel Geppetto creating deliberately many monstrous Pinocchios.

   Moreover, he could have saved those innocent kids with a snap of his finger.

   Don't, again, come with the mysterious god's plan that we can't understand.

   Any being that kills or deliberately let children be killed to test or punish his parents, or for any other purpose, is a monster! (Dostoyevsky).

   b) Or, in alternative, god would be a pathetic being, that couldn't do anything to change anything and that would see with horror his creation that he never imagined this way.

   I doubt that this second vision can be accepted by most believers, so we would have to conclude that god would be (if he existed) also the source of evil.


   8] Even for informed believers, who think there was a Big Bang, created by god with the final goal of creating us, it's very hard to explain why god waited 13.72 thousand million years (the consensual age of the Universe) to final create us.

   In the middle, he had to wait for the first generation of stars to die in supernovas to create the elements that are the basis of planets and of us (so forget Jesus, it were the stars that had to die for us to live: Lawrence Krauss).

   Wait for 9,22 thousand million years, for Earth to finally be formed and then for life to emerge.

   Then wait for several mass extinctions (pointless destruction) to finally get to modern humans, 200,000 years ago (deGrasse Tyson).

   Why?, if he could create everything in 6 days, as the bible says.

   You can repeat the old wasted say "god works in mysterious ways", but it's much more logical to just conclude that there was no god behind this arbitrary chain of events.


   9) Doesn't make any sense to base your philosophy of life and morality on something completely irrational as faith and unsubstantiated fear. Paul of Tarsos, the most important priest in the history of Christianity, didn't embrace it on faith. He needed to see Jesus with his own eyes to adopt Christianity.

   When main Churches acknowledge they can't offer any scientific or even rational base to believing in god, they ask you to believe in it out of faith (and fear).

   But imagine how your life would be if you ruled it solely on faith.

   Do you invest your money, make decisions about your health or on professional issues based only on faith?

   Imagine an engineer that planed his builds on faith. Would you trust his work?

   But if you try to live your life based on experience and scientific knowledge, why are you willing to base your philosophy of life and morality on such absurd grounds?

   As you know, Paul (originally, Saul) of Tarsus is much more important to Christianity than any of the Apostles. He converted Christianity from a Jewish sect into an universal religion.

   But initially he persecuted Christians. He only stopped and started promoting Christianity when "Jesus appeared to him" (Acts 9:1-9 and 12-18).

   So, Paul, the most important priest in the history of Christianity, didn't embrace it on faith. He needed to see with his own eyes.

   Why god demands from you that you believe on him based solely on faith, but didn't ask the same from Paul?

   Let him appear or send Jesus too (as seen above, they are not exactly the same) to you like to Paul.

   If you keep talking to god, but he doesn't answer (or only you can hear or see him or his "miracles"), something might be wrong with him (or, sorry to say, with you).


   10) If the meaning of this life is being a test to see if we are worthy of heaven, what is its point? Doesn't god, since he is omniscient, already know who would be the worthy ones?

   The so-called natural freedom of human beings (that has been questioned by science) is incompatible with the omniscience of god: if he already knows what we are going to do, our actions are already determined.

   Even if the test wasn't already ruined by the fact that god is responsible for what we do, since he (allegedly) created indirectly each one of us genetically exactly as we are and anticipated all our social conditions, even so, as an omniscient being, he already would know what were the results of the test.

   But that makes the test completely pointless.


   11) Deep down, most people saying they are religious, don't real believe in god or on an afterlife. Or, at least, they are not ready to risk this life or most of the things they have on it for a promise of an afterlife.

   One of the most astonishing things is the importance religious people give to all the details, material resources and honors they have in this life and how scare they usually are of dying.

   Even suicidal bombers hesitate or give up some times.

   For a real believer, this life of, say, 100 years, should be irrelevant compared with the next immortal one.
   
   If you knew for shore that exploding yourself would assure you a ticket to heaven doing that would make sense. Exchanging a life of 100 years for an eternal life seems logical.

   Why then this is absurd?

   Of course, first of all, because it is absurd to think that a god of love would send to heaven killers of innocent people, even on a "holy war", just to increase the number of worshipers (by violence and coercive conversions).

   But, mostly, it's absurd because all of this seems rubbish: there is no ground to think there is an afterlife waiting for you, as you deep down know.

   Moreover, that all believers (more or less, at least in some moments) are ready to sin against others and god (at least, small sins), risking their immortality, many times for petty things, seems completely absurd.

   Unless, deep down, you feel this is really the only life you will have.

   However, this implies a strategic approach to god.

   You play safe, to protect yourself if he do exists, and claim you are a religious person out of absurd fear. But you aren't really prepared to sacrifice any important thing in this life for your claim, since deep down you have serious doubts about his existence.

   Isn't he "omniscient" and aware of your doubts and lack of commitment? Do you think you can fool god by hiding your doubts? "Won't he punish you because of them with the flames of hell"?

   Isn't more honest and liberating to have the courage to admit that you aren't a religious person?[/b]



   Besides being false, religions also have negative social consequences:


   1) Religion and Churches are one of the oldest and the biggest scam in the history of Mankind. All religions end up building a church composed by a professional group of people who transmits, interprets and, sometimes, executes divine will. Of course, they are all paid by societies.

      Historically, they were supported with coercion. Paying the taxes to the church was a duty of all Christians sanctioned by the government, if necessary.

   In many Protestants Europeans countries, there still exists a church tax, collected by the government!! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax).

   In others, it's the State that pays the salaries and pensions of the priests of the main church (it's the case of the bankrupt Greece)!

   The Catholic Church even sold indulgences that allowed Christians to sin (!) and ended up provoking the Reformation movement in the XVI century.

   Only the Holy Sea knows the truth, but this church is considered one of the wealthy institutions on the world (http://www.economist.com/node/21560536;  http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/how-rich-vatican-so-wealthy-it-can-stumble-across-millions-euros-just-tucked-away-1478219).  

   But since it seems god doesn't listen to their pries and don't give miraculous gold to any church, in the end all are paid by society or, at least, by their believers' community.

   What do they give in exchange? More or less, they claim having the key to heaven.

   They say you have an immortal soul and directly or indirectly ask for money in exchange for telling you how to save it and helping/granting that you will be successful on that.

   If a doctor tried to ask for money in exchange of giving you a medicine that allegedly would grant you immortality, he would probably be arrested as a scammer.

   But a priest can promise that and get all your money in your dying bed.

   Millions of professional priests are supported by societies for a service based on clearly unsubstantiated allegations.

   You could argue that most of them do believe on what they say. However, many don't believe for a second on what they preach. And most of the rest, besides being aware that they have no evidence for what they are promising, do have serious doubts about the veracity of their statements (even Mother Teresa wrote about their own). This is enough to call these scammers.

   It's like someone here at the forum selling applications he doesn't know if they really work, having only faith, or even clear doubts, that this will happen, without disclosing that.

   I'm not going to open a thread on the Bitcointalk's scams forum against most of the churches of the world. The feeling that selling religious services is fair game is so rooted, that probably my thread would be transfer to this forum or removed as a political statement. But they would deserve it.

   I'm also not going to do that against god, since it isn't his fault: every thing suggests that he doesn't exist.

   No doubt, certain churches also have important social supporting activities, but they are well paid by the government or by private donations for that.

   Moreover, a few churches have resources to do much more than they do. But increasing their followers (and so, their power) had always prevalence over the needs of the poor.


   2) Religions induce conformity, intolerance, obscurantism and other nasty social consequences.

   Some believers, conceding that there is no evidence or even rational arguments supporting religious faith, say that, even if false, religion has positive social consequences.

   Recent investigations concluded otherwise, saying that religious children are more selfish, intolerant and punitive than children from atheist families. (https://www.academia.edu/19164068/The_Negative_Association_between_Religiousness_and_Children_s_Altruism_across_the_World).

   I won't write like some that religion has been the main cause of murder and wars.

   I admit that Thucydides's classic trilogy of fear, honor and greed for natural resources and power beats religion on this matter.

        But, even if its weight was small, let's remember this: "George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'" (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa ).

   No doubt, religion has been a very important cause (even if not the major one) for murder and war.

   Moreover, Marx called religion the people's opium with some reason. It installs on the people conformity for oppressive laws and arbitrary inequalities. "Suffer and obey now, you will get your reward in the afterlife".

   Religion has been mostly an instrument of power, helping legitimating political power and inducing obedience. ("Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God": Romans 13:1).

   Religions that aren't at the service of political power usually end badly, suppressed by the government or by churches fearing consequences (like with the Falun Gong in China or the Theology of liberation in South America).

   But religions are always at the service of the power of the leaders in the community of followers.

   Religion has also been an obstacle to progress in:

   Morality: since it's mainly based on Bronze Age rules.

   Science: by burning or repressing as heretics many scientists and rational thinkers by all the available means and censuring books.
   Even today, by trying to block investigation on certain domains based only on religious grounds.

   Education: historically, mainly in Catholic countries, by controlling schools and restringing learning to priests and elites in order to limit the direct access of the population to the "sacred" texts.
   I admit that in Jewish and Protestants societies that wasn't the case and religiosity might have even increased literacy, but mainly as an instrument to better understand religious texts. Schools transmitted basically knowledge conform with religious doctrine. On the United States, even now, is staggering the resistance to the study of evolution or modern cosmology in Schools.

   Politics: by supporting feudalism, absolute monarchies (Romans 13:1) and, currently, mainly, conservative ideas.

   Economy: historically, by the christian ban on interest rates (Deuteronomy, 23.20-21; and by canon law: http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2014/09/04/what-does-the-church-say-about-usury/), still the rule on many Muslim countries.

   Mentalities: Catholicism, and its contemplative/passive mentality, is considered (controversially) the major reason for the decadence of catholic countries (Max Weber).. Probably, the real reasons were the lack of promotion of education in catholic countries and the control of freethinkers by the Inquisition.

   There are also allegations that the high incidence of religiosity on the United States can explain his high rates of violent crimes, teen pregnancies and sexual diseases when compared with the low religiosity on Europe (Sam Harris).

   There isn't clear empirical evidence on the existence of a relation of causality between religiosity and crime, but the lack of sexual education and resistance on using contraceptives (like condoms) might explain teen pregnancy and sexual diseases.

   I can concede religion has inspire people to create beautiful art, but at what price? I'm sure talented people could find other sources of inspiration with equal results.

   
   Conclusion: The burden of proof is on the believers' side, since they are who argue for a positive thing: the existence of a mysterious higher being. Since they clearly didn't fulfill this burden, I can conclude that I don't believe in the existence of god.

   But I don't say I'm certain that god doesn't exist (even if I live clearly under this assumption). That could make me look like a believer, with faith on a negative fact.[/b]

   I just say I have no reasons to believe on his existence and have some grounds above presented that point against his existence.

   It's the same situation that makes be very skeptic on the existence of flying horses.

   I'm very skeptical, but I'm open to any real evidence on the existence of god or flying horses.

   Therefore, I think I have grounds to say that I'm an atheist and not a simple agnostic.

   

[1714221424]

1714221424

[1714221424]

1714221424

[1714221424]

1714221424

[1714221424]

1714221424

[1714221424]

1714221424

[Moloch]

Religitards think their shit don't stink...

They think they are better than everyone else (God's special/chosen people)

They think everyone else is doomed to hell, and certainly not worthy of being treated with common decency or respect

How sad it must be to believe you are inherently superior to anyone based on believing a fairy tale... What the fuck is wrong with people?

[Losvienleg]

You know, if you listen to your beloved Science, a man can become a women, or two faggot can become married, and they call this the liberty...

[Moloch]

You know, if you listen to your beloved Science, a man can become a women, or two faggot can become married, and they call this the liberty...

I suppose the opposite of discrimination is liberty?

What do you have against science?  That's crazy how you write derogatorily about it... Do you dislike science? Why?

Treating homosexuals with equality has nothing to do with science... Its a philosophy/moral/logic issue

[CoinCube]

Hi Trading. I see you have put a lot of thought and time into this recent post. I have reached a different conclusion. I have highlighted some areas were I believe your arguments to be flawed.  

Argument #1: Religion has negative social consequences

Besides being false, religions also have negative social consequences:
Recent investigations concluded otherwise, saying that religious children are more selfish, intolerant and punitive than children from atheist families. http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2901167-7

One can only believe this argument if one fails to objectively look at the data. The study you cited is behind a paywall so i could only read the abstract but just from that I can see that you have not presented it in an unbiased fashion. Your own citation claims that children in religious households have more more empathy and sensitivity for justice then children in non-religious households.

If you want to examine the real data on the social consequence of religion I would direct you to Pascals Renewed Wager which is not behind a paywall. This is a review paper which highlights the overwhelming evidence that not only are the very religious happier they do better on virtually all health metrics. I formalized this argument further in my thread Atheism and Health. The reality is I have yet to see a single study where atheist (of any stripe) outperform the very religious on any health metric.

Argument #2  Basing ones life and morality on religion is places it on absurd grounds

But if you try to live your life based on experience and scientific knowledge, why are you willing to base your philosophy of life and morality based on such absurd grounds?

Most atheist content themselves with attacking religion without truly and honestly considering where atheism logically takes you. Every once in a while you encounter an honest and thoughtful atheist. I had the honor of debating one of these recently. These are his comments on the matter.

At its most pure and fundamental level knowledge is faith and faith is knowledge.

This is the essential difference between theism/spiritualism and nihilism, it is the question of epistemology, of what is knowledge. I know that this equation of knowledge with faith is false or at least self-defeating. I agree, atheism is false, but that it is false exactly to the extent that its still not absolute nihilism. It is because people still think of the world in an essentially spiritualistic way, that they fear nihilism and it is because they are still spiritualists, that they have something to fear from nihilism. But to know there is no intrinsic value is the knowledge required to know what value in general is, how to create it and improve it. By having faith in intrinsic value, one is abandoning the quest for knowledge of value, and thus any chance of progress. It is accepting the world as it is, barbaric and unjust. Spiritualists believe in writings on the wall only because they still live behind one.

As a nihilist I think higher of people that, like CoinCube, know the reasons for their belief, no matter how false, than of those that believe blindly and quote inspirational posters as the basis of their belief.

On this point nihilnegativum and I are in agreement. Atheism takes you logically and inexorably into nihilism and this is a treacherous foundation both for a philosophy or life or morality.  

Argument #3 Religious books are full of immoral things

Some of those are so hideous that they can't seriously be considered the word of a god.
For instance, "for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me". Exodus, 20.5. This horrible statement is part of the Ten Commandments! And it's stated also in Exodus 34:7; Deuteronomy 5:9; Numbers 14:18.

The examples are innumerable: acceptance of slavery, death penalty for the most banal deeds, sexual discrimination, killing of gays, etc. But a decisive one is enough to dismiss the Bible as a "sacred" source of moral precepts.

One wonders exactly how the third and fourth generation of those who hate God are punished. Does God punish these innocent children directly or is he warning us that by rejecting him and embracing sin we are harming ourselves and our future children. One wonders if the worst punishment that can be inflected on the third and fourth generations is to deny them the opportunity to exist at all? As it appears that there is not a single current or historic non-religious group that has maintained reproductive replacement levels on the communal level perhaps this warning is a sound one. Regarding slavery in the Old Testament Rabbi Tzvi Freeman discussed this issue extensively as I highlighted here.
 
Argument #4 Consciousness does not survive death and the brain creates consciousness

On the issue of the "soul", taking in account the recent research on the brain, doesn't make sense to say that the human brain, that is the most complex system we know on nature, doesn't create the conscience. The evidence we have point clearly in the positive sense, even if there are still much investigation to be done on the issue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Neural_correlates). If that wasn't the case, we couldn't explain why your "soul" is affected by a trauma to the brain. Why when we pass out, our "soul" passes out too... How dare you to believe that your "soul" will survive the death of your brain based on what we know?

This depends on how one looks at consciousness. I argued in my recent discussion on Consciousness that consciousness should not be looked at as arising from the brain but instead as propagating through it.

[exemplaar]

You know, if you listen to your beloved Science, a man can become a women, or two faggot can become married, and they call this the liberty...

They call that liberty because they desperately are seeking the liberation out of slavery, fear and bondage. Because of ignorance in which they live, they do not know that their practice has no power to free them from that state. For example that's why atheists now are grasping and embracing alien agenda(aliens will come and help us from our bondage). Even Richard Dawkins himself is now embracing probability of inteligent design by distant aliens.


To the author of this topic:

Very good points, it is rare to find here an honest atheist.

Now I will cover only your point 8]
Even for informed believers, that think there was a Big Bang, created by god with the final goal of creating us, it's very hard to explain why god waited 13.72 thousand million years (the consensual age of the Universe) to final create us.  

In fact it will be very simple to explain when you will learn that 500 years of heliocentrism fairytale has finally been put to an end. And with that also big bang, black holes, dark matter and other similar nonsense, evolution, aliens and all the humanistic agenda. Some people can be fooled some time, but not all people all the time.
We live on a stationary plane environment, not on a random spinning globe planet flying through a waste accidental universe with billions of galaxies destroying eachother.
Beautiful precisely designed creation that our Creator provided for us and our benefit. We are the focus and center of all happening. Every single life is precious and very important. There is no outer space with billions of galaxies and alien infested distant planets.
Fixed&Flat surface, closed environment with dome over us and with sun,moon and stars under the dome for signs and seasons.

There is no proof of a spinning globe flying through waste universe. Never was, never will be. And there are plenty of evidence for stationary flat earth environment, easily to find through simple observation and research. No schemes and riddles, all plain flat simple.

I welcome you to visit our hot topics: Flat Earth confirmed https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.720 and Flat earth news https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1318880.new#new
You will know that they poisoned your brain from childhood. How old were you when they first showed you that you live on a spinning ball? At that time your indoctrination of a ball earth religion begun.

Just start your own research today and you will be able to find answers with ease.

[hasan7779]

As I do not believe in god. I think there is no god in this world.  So I am an atheist

[Trading]

My text have other important arguments beside the ones you picked.

Anyway:

1) Social consequences: This argument in based on a factual assertion, so it's simple.

You have here the full article: https://www.academia.edu/19164068/The_Negative_Association_between_Religiousness_and_Children_s_Altruism_across_the_World

The article doesn't says religious kids "have more more empathy and sensitivity for justice then children in non-religious households". Says that their parents said that, which is a different thing.

Read the full text: "Parents of Children from Christian Households View Their Children as More Sensitive to Injustices toward Others" (p. 2954, figure 4).

"Consistent with research linking religiousness and adult self-reports of moral behavior, frequency of religious attendance, spirituality, and overall religiousness predicted parent-reported child sensitivity to the plight of others (empathy and sensitivity to justice). Religious individuals consistently score higher than non-religiousones on self-reported measures of socially desirable responding [26]. This previous literature, coupled with the currentfindings,supports an internal consistency in adults’ self-assessments of their moral dispositions and extends to their beliefs about their children." (P. 2953).

The article mocks those self-reports.

It would be a surprise if after failing on altruism, religious kids would win on empathy or non punitive justice.

There are some religions that have a complex of "chosen" people that will go to heaven compared with the "infidels" that will burn in hell and, so, are more or less a distinct kind of human, doomed to the flames, unworthy of the same respect. Most people convinced that they own the truth will be intolerant to the "others".

This kind of thought, which is the basis of the inquisition, still exists. I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of the reasons for these results.

Your health praises of religion are like considering religion as a kind of Prozac or Ecstasy. One lives happy in one's delusion.

 I prefer to be haunted by my destiny of nothingness, than live under an illusion (as I wrote here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1221052.msg14296644#msg14296644), especially one that I think has serious social consequences.

I admit that this might have negative consequences on individual health. But it's absurd to believe in god for health reasons. It's like defending that we should be permanently high in order to be happy.

On Pascal's wager, or the "prudential reason to believe in God", I more or less mock it on my 11 point. It isn't honest.

But I'll have to evaluate more empirical studies, including the one you quoted.

2) If you read John Rawls' Theory of Justice you will realize that atheism/secularism doesn't need a god to justify Ethics. I'm no nihilist on Ethics as is clear on the next point.

3) I'm appalled by your attempt to justify the quoted passage of the Exodus.

What is written there is beyond any justification under current Ethics. It seems your problem is only with the punishment of the third and forth generation, no problem with the sons being punished by the sins of their parents, even if they believe in the "right god" and are good persons.

I think the current disastrous birth rate rate on western countries has little to do with religiosity. Even if it seems clear that religion induces people to have children, it isn't the lack of it that makes people stop having them. The reason is economic: people don't need to have children, the state/corporation pays their pension (until it soon goes bankrupt, then they will start having babies again).

Anyway, god won't punish only the atheists, but also believers on other gods. And those have been on Earth for more than 50,000 years. There would be plenty of generations to punish.

I don't see the point on debating the clear immorality of main rules of the Torah. If you can't see it on your own, you seem to live in a world with no modern individual rights.

4) Your theory on the Brain's role as a transmitter is precisely what I criticize.

You didn't explained how we lose conscience when the brain is injured/hill and why when the brain recovers we can't remember anything. If it was a transmitter, we should remember everything during the black out of the brain. It should be only an interruption of the "transmission".

[CoinCube]

...

3) I'm appalled by your attempt to justify the quoted passage of the Exodus.

What is written there is beyond any justification under current Ethics. It seems your problem is only with the punishment of the third and forth generation, no problem with the kids being punished by the sins of their parents, even if they believe in the "right god" and are good persons.

I think the current disastrous birth rate rate on western countries has little to do with religiosity. The reason is economic: people don't need to have children, the state/corporation pays their pension (until it soon goes bankrupt, then they will start having babies again).

Anyway, god won't punish only the atheists, but also believers on other gods. And those have been on the earth for more than 50,000 years. There would be plenty of generations to punish.

I don't see the point on debating the clear immorality of main rules of the Torah. If you can't see it on your own, you seem to live in a world with no modern individual rights.

Thanks the entire article helps I read it over. I agree that in this one study with by far the largest participating group being very young Muslim children 43% that religious children scored lower on the dictator game (the measure of altruism used) then the non religious individuals from those same countries. However, I do not find the study to be particularly compelling.

From the study itself it appears that religious children judge interpersonal harm as more serious aka more mean then non-religious children.

Post hoc Bonferroni-corrected paired comparisons showed that children in Muslim households judged interpersonal harm as more mean than children from Christian (p < 0.005) and non-religious (p < 0.001) households, and children from Christian households judged interpersonal harm as more mean than children from non-religious households(p < 0.01).

Should we conclude from this that non-religious children are more likely to cause interpersonal harm to other children? No that would be silly we are talking about 8 year old children here. A far more likely scenario is that when eight year old children are raised in a religious environment they learn about sin and absolute standards of right and wrong and being eight they do not yet know how to rationally apply those standards properly to the outside world. This interpenetration is consistent with all of the religious studies on altruism in adults which more or less uniformly show a strong correlation between altruism and religion.

I do not think you understood my argument on the Exodus passage. A simple substitution may help demonstrate my point take the following statement.

for I, forbid the daily injection of heroin because doing this, punishes the children for sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who defy this prohibition.

Setting religion entirely aside is the statement above a true one? Well daily heroin injection very well may kill you and thus preventing the third and fourth generation from ever existing so that counts. If it does not kill you it is highly likely to damage you in some way either economically or mentally thus impacting the way you raise your children and at least indirectly damaging them as well. Indeed the damage from such a destructive habit is likely to propagate through multiple generators either directly or indirectly. The Exodus statement does not have to be read as that of a vengeful god looking to punish innocent children. It can alternatively be interpreted as a plea for people to not to harm themselves and their future descendants.

Exodus 20:5-6 (also Dt 5:9)

I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Deuteronomy 24:16

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

4) Your theory on the Brain's role as a transmitter is precisely what I criticize.

You didn't explained how we lose conscience when the brain is injured/hill and why when the brain recovers we can't remember anything. If it was a transmitter, we should remember everything during the black out of the brain. It should be only an interruption of the "transmission".

Waves can be suppressed and for the period of time they are suppressed it is as if the wave does not exist at all.
See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKrvTA4SKVU

[Losvienleg]

You know, if you listen to your beloved Science, a man can become a women, or two faggot can become married, and they call this the liberty...

I suppose the opposite of discrimination is liberty?

What do you have against science?  That's crazy how you write derogatorily about it... Do you dislike science? Why?

Treating homosexuals with equality has nothing to do with science... Its a philosophy/moral/logic issue

When you cross the mark of the natural normalness and that it is tolarated, even encouraged, there's definitely something weird. The pro-gays say that they're common humans and brand their actions as the fight for the liberty.

It seems that you did not listened to any socialist leader recently. They say that the forgot ism is something fully natural, and thus should exist, and thus should exist. It is heavily positively branded and encouraged.

About the science : even if I admire some science theories, a big part of them are dumb and desparated anti-religion crusades.

[danielpbarron]

Why am I an atheist?

Because God caused you to not believe so that you will not repent and He will destroy you in hell.

Romans 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

[richjohn]

I just want to say that you are only denying the existence of God. How can you came up with the idea of God. Since you know Him, He exists. Another is that maybe it is your personal experience that make yourself distance from God. Try to observe in your surroundings. Can't you see how beautiful His creation? Well I respect your view but I am not convinced with it.

[Moloch]

You know, if you listen to your beloved Science, a man can become a women, or two faggot can become married, and they call this the liberty...

I suppose the opposite of discrimination is liberty?

What do you have against science?  That's crazy how you write derogatorily about it... Do you dislike science? Why?

Treating homosexuals with equality has nothing to do with science... Its a philosophy/moral/logic issue

When you cross the mark of the natural normalness and that it is tolarated, even encouraged, there's definitely something weird. The pro-gays say that they're common humans and brand their actions as the fight for the liberty.

It seems that you did not listened to any socialist leader recently. They say that the forgot ism is something fully natural, and thus should exist, and thus should exist. It is heavily positively branded and encouraged.

About the science : even if I admire some science theories, a big part of them are dumb and desparated anti-religion crusades.

Who "crossed the mark of natural normalness"?

Homosexuality is very natural and exhibited by nearly every species on the planet at a rate of around 10%!

Science is not anti-religion... Science is pro-truth and pro-honestly, and pro-integrity, and believes in facts and evidence that can be proven... You are only upset that religion does not fit the definition of fact, reality, or science

What is this nonsense about a socialist leader? Can you repeat that in English?

[Trading]

I do not think you understood my argument on the Exodus passage. A simple substitution may help demonstrate my point take the following statement.

(...)

Waves can be suppressed and for the period of time they are suppressed it is as if the wave does not exist at all.
See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKrvTA4SKVU

You interpretation of the exodus quote is untenable. If the mentioned punishment was a natural one, flowing from the unbelievers acts and not directly provoked by a divine intentional act, there wouldn't be any reason to limit the punish to the fourth generation. And the threat would be irrelevant.

Thank you to point out the contradictions of the Torah on criminal guilt transmission between generations. I think the ten commandments have clear prevalence.

Anyway, if you are morally comfortable with all my quotes of the Torah (see the updated version), sorry, but you are the living proof of the evil consequences of your religion. Your religious education was able to isolate you from all the moral advances humankind made in 3,000 years.

"Waves"? Is that really your best argument? How convenient, to invent "waves" out of nothing.

I think you know that very soon science will prove beyond any doubt that the brain creates conscience. It's a matter of fact, so we'll find the evidence.

[Moloch]

Thank you to point out the contradictions of the Torah on criminal guilt's transmission between generations. I think the ten commandments have clear prevalence.

1) The word you are looking for is precedence, not prevalence

B) The 10-commandments are part of the Torah... And nowhere in the bible does it say the 10-commandments are more important than the other 603 commandments in the Torah...

In fact, the bible says the exact opposite... Jesus says whoever breaks the least of the commandments is guilty of breaking all of them!

Basically, murder and stealing are just as bad as making an idol, or not going to church on Sunday, or shaving your beard, or eating bacon... All just as evil to God

[Trading]

Why am I an atheist?

Because God caused you to not believe so that you will not repent and He will destroy you in hell.

Usually, I simple ignore all comments like yours, since they are irrelevant. But I'm going to open an exception.

According to your "loving" god, I won't be destroyed in hell rather I will "burn" there alive for all eternity (Matthew 25:41; Jude 1:7; Mark 9:43; of course, especially on this issue there are many different inventions: my text, point 5).

Furthermore, the only natural meaning of Exodus 20:5; Exodus 34:7; Deuteronomy 5:9 and Numbers 14:18, is that also my sons, my grandsons, my great-grandsons and also their children, will burn eternally in hell also, only because of me, no matter how good and religious they are.

But as you write, it was god that "made" me like this, I'm just "following his plan" for me, therefore he is guilty for my sins, including my disbelieve in him (my text, point 7). God would burn in hell for eternity too if he followed his own rules.

Still on burning in hell, I'm going to quote an interesting (religious, even if heretic) Spanish writer, Miguel de Unamuno:

"And I must confess, painful though the confession be (...) [that] descriptions of the tortures of hell, however terrible, never made me tremble, for I always felt that nothingness was much more terrifying. He who suffers lives, and he who lives suffering, even though over the portal of his abode is written "Abandon all hope!" loves and hopes. It is better to live in pain than to cease to be in peace. The truth is that I could not believe in this atrocity of Hell, of an eternity of punishment, nor did I see any more real hell than nothingness and the prospect of it." (Tragic Sense Of Life, 1913, III - The Hunger of Immortality: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14636).

Religion can't scare an atheist. Our own conclusion condemns us to a certain destiny of eternal nothingness even worst than most versions of hell and that didn't make us retract it.

[Trading]

Thank you to point out the contradictions of the Torah on criminal guilt's transmission between generations. I think the ten commandments have clear prevalence.

1) The word you are looking for is precedence, not prevalence

B) The 10-commandments are part of the Torah... And nowhere in the bible does it say the 10-commandments are more important than the other 603 commandments in the Torah...

In fact, the bible says the exact opposite... Jesus says whoever breaks the least of the commandments is guilty of breaking all of them!

Basically, murder and stealing are just as bad as making an idol, or not going to church on Sunday, or shaving your beard, or eating bacon... All just as evil to God

1) I might agree that, currently, precedence would be more correct. But prevalence also means predominance and preponderance. Actually, the original meaning of precedence is temporal antecedence, not supremacy. But I have no claim on the correctness of my English, since it isn't my primary language.

2) Do you really think that the order of the ten commandments is irrelevant? That there weren't commandments more important than others, starting with the ones relating to god (Deuteronomy 6:4-5; Mark 12:28-34)? As you know, many texts give more importance to some sins (Galatians 5:19-21). They are the basis of the deadly sins created by Pope Gregory I, so divine rules weren't interpreted as having all the same value.

3) The precedence of the ten commandments is stated on the second commandment. Those 10 are the ones that should be obeyed before others. From these 10 came the two enunciated by Jesus, according to precedents: Matthew 22:40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets". The same conclusion results from the quoted Mark 12:28-34.

But as far I understood, you are a fellow atheist and we both agree that the Bible has appalling rules and we couldn't care less for these details.

[CoinCube]

Furthermore, the only natural meaning of Exodus 20:5; Exodus 34:7; Deuteronomy 5:9 and Numbers 14:18, is that also my sons, my grandsons, my great-grandsons and also their children, will burn eternally in hell also, only because of me, no matter how good and religious they are.

This may be your personal belief but you should know that there is an entire religion that believes something entirely different. Calling your interpretation the only natural meaning is an error. 

http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/choosing-judaism/inspiration/belief-in-heaven-is-fundamental-to-judaism/

Contrary to the Greek and Christian view of eternal damnation in Hades or Hell, the “punishment” of Sheol, as described in the Jewish Scriptures, is temporary.

Judaism’s view of hell more closely resembles purgatory. However, the pain the soul experiences is not physical.  It has been compared to psychological anguish, shame and healing upon reviewing the history of one’s life in a body, and how it wasted opportunities to serve God. This may explain why people who have near death experience often claim their entire life flashed in front of them.

...

Anyway, if you are morally comfortable with all my quotes on the Torah (see the updated version), sorry, but you are the living proof of the evil consequences of your religion. Your religious education was able to isolate you from all the moral advances humankind made in 3,000 years.

Actually I don't really have a religion at the moment other then generally theist. I am not Jewish and did not have the benefit of a formal religious education. I am a former atheist which is why I responded to your post.

Everyone has a different path to take in life. In the later posts of the Atheism and Health thread I explained my path and the logic that led me to reject athiesm as false. I wish you good fortune on your journey.

[yenxz]

Face your destiny in the eyes and live proud for having no leach, but the one imposed by your fellow human beings organized as a society (supposedly) for the benefice of all.

   However, I don't have anything against a sincere believer. You are my fellow human being who share with me our finite condition. You just found a different (erroneous, under my perspective) way to deal with it.

makes sense,i'm sure atheis have very strong logical thought,they always think based reality and of course not believe any unclear and undefine story,just like story of some religion,atheis hate religion?they never think that this world never exist without creator?so what do you think about universe creator?

[BADecker]

Why am I an atheist?

Because God caused you to not believe so that you will not repent and He will destroy you in hell.

Usually, I simple ignore all comments like yours, since they are irrelevant. But I'm going to open an exception.

According to your "loving" god, I won't be destroyed in hell rather I will "burn" there alive for all eternity (Matthew 25:41; Jude 1:7; Mark 9:43; of course, especially on this issue there are many different inventions: my text, point 5).

Furthermore, the only natural meaning of Exodus 20:5; Exodus 34:7; Deuteronomy 5:9 and Numbers 14:18, is that also my sons, my grandsons, my great-grandsons and also their children, will burn eternally in hell also, only because of me, no matter how good and religious they are.

But as you write, it was god that "made" me like this, I'm just "following his plan" for me, therefore he is guilty for my sins, including my disbelieve in him (my text, point 7). God would burn in hell for eternity too if he followed his own rules.

Still on burning in hell, I'm going to quote an interesting (religious, even if heretic) Spanish writer, Miguel de Unamuno:

"And I must confess, painful though the confession be (...) [that] descriptions of the tortures of hell, however terrible, never made me tremble, for I always felt that nothingness was much more terrifying. He who suffers lives, and he who lives suffering, even though over the portal of his abode is written "Abandon all hope!" loves and hopes. It is better to live in pain than to cease to be in peace. The truth is that I could not believe in this atrocity of Hell, of an eternity of punishment, nor did I see any more real hell than nothingness and the prospect of it." (Tragic Sense Of Life, 1913, III - The Hunger of Immortality: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14636).

Religion can't scare an atheist. Our own conclusion condemns us to a certain destiny of eternal nothingness even worst than most versions of hell and that didn't make us retract it.

Here is the mistake in the thinking of Spanish writer, Miguel de Unamuno. Few people understand how deeply our souls and spirits are embedded within the core existence of the universe. Spanish writer, Miguel de Unamuno was among those who don't understand.

The core existence of the universe includes the dimensions, the parallel universes, the intelligence of the universe, and all time. In addition, there are probably many more things that are included that people haven't yet found out about.

The point? The destruction of the universe and the attached souls is a far greater happening than people understand. There is no such thing as simple death. There are only two points about the hereafter. Either, be removed from this universe and do not die, or go down with the collapse and dissolution of all space and time, to which your soul and essence is connected at its core.