Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 143. (Read 901343 times)

Who said that atheists hate religion ?! I believe in God, but I rarely attend Church. I know atheists who are loyal to the people of faith and religion in general.

I don't know why they hates religion. They have their affairs and we have our affairs.
Let them take care of their affairs.

You seem to be saying that people hate religion, because science doesn't prove much to them, but rather must be accepted by faith, just like any other religion. But the people want something that is factual, something that they KNOW rather than something that they need to have faith in. So they hate religion, even their religion of science, because much of science has to be taken on faith.

Why do Atheists hate Religion it because they don't believe in anything they are just reading scientist books or etchetera and they have a problem with their lives for sure , they also believe in science that science created everything if you are going to read the article you gonna believe it for sure too.

Poll: Is BADecker a paid troll or just a simple idiot?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/is-user-badecker-a-paid-troll-or-just-a-simple-idiot-1606430

Certainly the minds of people construe the construction to be this or that. The point is what God says. There is a special spiritual ringing when you finally believe the Bible, one that you won't get from any other religious book. You know it is true, because your spirit recognizes the truth of it... when you believe.

The reality that any religious book "is", has been socially constructed. See social constructionism to better understand the nature of these things.

I see what you mean. It's like science fiction for you. Probably the science in 99+% of science fiction is fiction, besides the sci-fi stories being novels. At least the Bible is reality.

I love how you are painting your epistemological picture, grounded in the ancient collection of religious writings which has become widely known as "bible" BADecker.  You are doing a terrific job constructing your understanding of the world that form the basis for your (shared by many others too) assumptions about reality, all of it based on that storied book.

But I have to be honest with you - I find the ancient collection "bible story book" to be inhibitive of my imaginary capabilities. There are so much un-explored magical imagination in so many individuals just because of the restrictive nature of this religious book. I believe in opening up imaginative capabilities, not restricting it by setting man-made borders on what is to be real and what not.

I do adhere to, and find inspiring, the core idea of who (I think> imagine really) the historical Jesus was and what he stood for - this is something I have to read "between the lines" of this book because it is twisted so much through the millennia, [not to even speak of the New Testament writings which is already a myriad of interpretations of him, all cast in the religio-cultural context of that particular time and place in history]  that it is impossible to rely on the current (or past prints for that matter) prints as even remotely close to the actual wording of Jesus.

I am not of mid-eastern region and do not adhere to mid-eastern culture, past and present, as is clearly displayed in the bible collection.

The claim on reality in the bible collection story book is only as good as the imaginations and inspirations of those writers and the religio-culture to which they belong. I'm not saying it is not interesting to read, it is interesting to read and some parts are very inspirational, but I cannot accept it binding as pertains to (my) reality. I need wider vistas and broader scopes to color my painting.

The devil looked at the glory God had given Him. You can see it in Ezekiel chapter 28, where the prophecy against the King of Tyre turns into a prophecy about Satan. Satan corrupted himself by becoming conceited because of the glory God gave him.

When God made people to be the apple of His eye, Satan became jealous. He decided he could do it better than God. But to be at least like God, he had to do at least the things that God did. He had to create something. But what could he create that God hadn't created? God had created everything so well that it all worked together perfectly.

The only thing that God didn't create was destruction. And, destruction being a far easier thing to create and do than building things up, AND since it would show strength above God (he thought), Satan created destruction. That's why he is called Abaddon and Apollyon in the Revelation.

But God is way greater, far beyond what Satan understood, even in all his (Satan's) glory. First, God maintained all things even though Satan attempted to destroy them. He did it by working destruction far better than Satan could. Second, God is using Satan's own destruction to destroy Satan himself, and to destroy destruction itself. The work of Jesus on the cross, and His resurrection, is the greater part of the way God is using destruction to overcome destruction.

So, yes. Jesus understands sin.

What do you think?

To show perfect compassion on sin you have to perfectly know sin. Jesus knows sin fully, I'm sure.

God is not a sinner. He is ruler. Even if He did what looked like a sin, it isn't sin for Him, because He owns it all, and can do with everything as He wants.

However, God has had compassion on you in your sinfulness. He did it by sending Jesus to take away the effects of your sinning, so that you can be saved... if you believe.

God sounds a bit like I used to be - didn't work out, the perfection thing. At least being a Sinner himself, He now can have compassion on me sinning too, and do it perfectly. Cool stuff.  

God's biggest thing is perfection. He is perfect and requires us to be the same way.

If God ever sinned, He did it perfectly. We can't even sin perfectly, to say nothing about not sinning perfectly.

I experience "family" with momma and dadda and sista and bro in an engrained fashion. In "family" there is care, nurture, nourishment, togetherness, guidance etc. So having these engrained unalterable experiences, it is highly likely that when I do imagine an initial cause, an architect of sorts, that the experiences of "family" is transferred to this initial cause if I choose to imagine this first cause, and do it in quite a positive manner. It's my personal choosing to widen my experience - to stretch it if you will, and do it in a wholesome way for my personal wellbeing.

Who's your daddy?

Skydaddy?

LOL

Which came first, the sky-daddy or his daddy?

 

I have put further thought into the why Q of OP. Here are preliminary outflows for your consideration (I hope this can spark a lovely debate/discussion :

All knowledge is a posteriori [A posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence, as with most aspects of science and personal knowledge]

Since this is what I believe, I also believe that All language and its constructs are of the same kind (a posteriori).

Therefore I believe the construct "God" to also be of the same kind.

Is it real? For me it definitely is real - as real as I am. 

Except that I showed you how science proves God exists. And you say that it doesn't. But you can't even refute one point of the science that I show.

So, you are not only a bigot, not only are you deceitfully using political science all the time, but you are a liar. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Because you are not required to refute anything. So it might be that you are simply presenting yourself as a liar, without being one.

On second thought, when you present yourself as a liar without really being a liar, yes, you are a liar.

*Sign*  Not sure if your being delibrately insolent or just trolling. Here it is for the last time tonight:

"Science cannot prove or disprove God."

So the answer to your question is no. The same answer it's always been.