Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 16. (Read 901357 times)
^^^ The thing you talk about is your religion. Religions have been around long before science came to view. Religions show us that the thing you call progress is really devolution in people. So, it is you who have a religion, because the progress you talk about is really, simply a level of retardation of progress.
I am an atheist and the society, although it tried to teach me to believe, the head said no.
I am not against religions, although they are aggravated by progress. But when it starts to hinder the development of our species, it starts to annoy me. After all, it is very difficult to prove anything to a believer.
Your personal religious beliefs and/or superstitions are irrelevant.
Obey the law, or be prepared to pay the piper.
What ultimately is the moral foundation for the law?
...
Obey the law, or be prepared to pay the piper yes but what is the standard I can use to judge the law itself?
...
What do you mean "get it wrong"?
...
it is voted on and eventually passed.
...
The moral foundation is based on our collective determination
...
Good, new laws are passed. Bad laws are dropped.
I cut out the extraneous to highlight the core of your argument. Your problem is you reject a moral authority higher than mankind.
...
Of course, I do, so do all other sane people. That is why our laws are better than Sharia or Bible laws.
What higher moral authority than mankind is there? Human delusion?
BTW, https://www.foxnews.com/world/at-least-13-dead-six-injured-in-south-africa-church-collapse-report
Problem is that your codified delusion does not change and is useless in the ever-changing world.
You have three problems:
1. You are delusional.
2. You use your delusion to justify inflicting harm on others.
3. Your codified delusion does not change.
You are stuck in a box unable to free yourself. You are a mental masochist, your delusion is your bondage that for some psychological reason you so desperately need and actively seek.
At least do us all a favor and stop justifying harming others based on your delusion.
Your personal religious beliefs and/or superstitions are irrelevant.
Obey the law, or be prepared to pay the piper.
What ultimately is the moral foundation for the law?
...
Obey the law, or be prepared to pay the piper yes but what is the standard I can use to judge the law itself?
...
What do you mean "get it wrong"?
...
it is voted on and eventually passed.
...
The moral foundation is based on our collective determination
...
Good, new laws are passed. Bad laws are dropped.
I cut out the extraneous to highlight the core of your argument. Your problem is you reject a moral authority higher than mankind.
This leads you to the erroneous belief that the collective cannot by definition get it “wrong” they are the collective your ultimate arbiter of truth and value.
You deny the existence of a moral standard that would allow you to reject a new and legitimately passed law as evil or immoral. Thus your dismissal of religion and interest in secular law.
You should take a moment to reread the Declaration of Independence. The people who set up the foundations of the law we live under had far more wisdom. Their views were deeply grounded in the personal religious beliefs you find so irrelevant.
The video essay of CS Lewis I shared earlier comes to mind. You are the gentleman asking “will it increase the happiness of the majority?”
Man or Rabbit? by CS Lewis
Morals in the bible are bad, this is easily shown because even the people that follow the bible don't actually follow all the rules written there, for instance most religious people know slavery is wrong, rape is wrong, etc even though they are allowed in the bible and there are specific rules for each of them. We also don't kill people for working in the sabbath which is also something explicitly indicated in the bible, god himself commanded people to kill other people.
Your personal religious beliefs and/or superstitions are irrelevant.
Obey the law, or be prepared to pay the piper.
What ultimately is the moral foundation for the law?
...
Obey the law, or be prepared to pay the piper yes but what is the standard I can use to judge the law itself?
...
What do you mean "get it wrong"?
...
it is voted on and eventually passed.
...
The moral foundation is based on our collective determination
...
Good, new laws are passed. Bad laws are dropped.
I cut out the extraneous to highlight the core of your argument. Your problem is you reject a moral authority higher than mankind.
This leads you to the erroneous belief that the collective cannot by definition get it “wrong” they are the collective your ultimate arbiter of truth and value.
You deny the existence of a moral standard that would allow you to reject a new and legitimately passed law as evil or immoral. Thus your dismissal of religion and interest in secular law.
You should take a moment to reread the Declaration of Independence. The people who set up the foundations of the law we live under had far more wisdom. Their views were deeply grounded in the personal religious beliefs you find so irrelevant.
The video essay of CS Lewis I shared earlier comes to mind. You are the gentleman asking “will it increase the happiness of the majority?”
Man or Rabbit? by CS Lewis
Me as a Catholic there are things that I can't really understand like why atheists hate religion. Well, my opinion is here. Maybe atheists hate religion because there is much religion in this world and some of them are very strict in many things like food. Atheists are so free so I guess they hated religion for its striction.
I am not sure why we're even discussing religions in the 21st century. We don't discuss witchcraft and reincarnation anymore. Time to drop the charade.
Because people are religious beings. What makes them religious? The fact that they don't know with absolute certainty what will happen in the nest second. They rely on religion to tell their future for them, so that they can be comfortable in living their lives.
The difference with you and other atheists is, your religion tries to get rid of the idea of religion so that you can be the god of your life. It's a false religion that you have. You still don't know for a fact what will happen in the next second.
I am not sure why we're even discussing religions in the 21st century. We don't discuss witchcraft and reincarnation anymore. Time to drop the charade.
When you break the employment laws, you break the law, it does not matter if you are a Christian, Wiccan, Buddist or a Jew.
Your personal religious beliefs and/or superstitions are irrelevant.
Obey the law, or be prepared to pay the piper.
Who gets to decide what the law is? What if they get it wrong?
What ultimately is the moral foundation for the law?
Is their a moral foundation or is it the law simply a means for the powerful to rule over the weak?
The answer to these questions are religious ones like it our not. They are grounded in the a priori.
I am sure you can answer these questions we all can, but whatever answer you give is ultimately grounded in some form of religious assumption faith if you will explicit or implicit.
Obey the law, or be prepared to pay the piper yes but what is the standard I can use to judge the law itself?
Religious beliefs are anything but irrelevant and disregarding them as you do blinds you to the actual workings of the world.
Congress creates and passes bills, the president signs them into laws.
What do you mean "get it wrong"? It is discussed left and right before it is voted on and eventually passed.
The moral foundation is based on our collective determination on which actions are causing harm. We pass new laws to make our societies more civilized. Laws are not written in stone.
Societies change, so do the laws that govern them. Once upon the time, people could be bought and sold, women were not allowed to vote, blacks could not ride in the front of the bus, gay men could not marry other gay men. Now they can. Good, new laws are passed. Bad laws are dropped.
AI will soon need new laws. When the Internet was invented there were no laws to govern it so we introduced new laws to govern activities on the Internet.
You cannot be that ignorant of where you live and what is happening around you. Priori my ass.
I am not sure why we're even discussing religions in the 21st century. We don't discuss witchcraft and reincarnation anymore. Time to drop the charade.
When you break the employment laws, you break the law, it does not matter if you are a Christian, Wiccan, Buddist or a Jew.
Your personal religious beliefs and/or superstitions are irrelevant.
Obey the law, or be prepared to pay the piper.
Who gets to decide what the law is? What if they get it wrong?
What ultimately is the moral foundation for the law?
Is their a moral foundation or is it the law simply a means for the powerful to rule over the weak?
The answer to these questions are religious ones like it our not. They are grounded in the a priori.
I am sure you can answer these questions we all can, but whatever answer you give is ultimately grounded in some form of religious assumption faith if you will explicit or implicit.
Obey the law, or be prepared to pay the piper yes but what is the standard I can use to judge the law itself?
Religious beliefs are anything but irrelevant and disregarding them as you do blinds you to the actual workings of the world.
The only way to properly judge the various religious activities of the various religions, is to judge them according to what they say. You can't judge Muslims according to Christian standards, or Christians according to Buddhist standards. Religious equality should be based on what the religions say.
Since people are physically built approximately the same, they should be judged according to how they treat other people, even though their religions might be drastically different.
Since it is mostly atheists who want to bring about religious persecution by promoting lack of religious freedom, they are the ones who fit their own religion of non-religion the best.
"Equality Act" Seeks Federal Persecution of Christians
Go to the article and read more.
Since people are physically built approximately the same, they should be judged according to how they treat other people, even though their religions might be drastically different.
Since it is mostly atheists who want to bring about religious persecution by promoting lack of religious freedom, they are the ones who fit their own religion of non-religion the best.
"Equality Act" Seeks Federal Persecution of Christians
Democrats in Congress are pushing “equality” legislation that critics say would criminalize Christianity, Islam, and Judaism by forcing virtually every institution in society — including religious institutions — to hire, serve, and promote homosexuals and individuals confused about their gender. A number of analysts have warned that by enshrining “sexual orientation” in the statute, even pedophilia and pederasty could be protected. In the House of Representatives, Democrats already have more than enough co-sponsors to pass the bill. And in the Senate, they are getting very close. But a massive coalition of critics from across the political spectrum and a broad array of religious traditions is rising up to stop it before it is too late.
Among other changes, the so-called Equality Act, also known as H.R. 5 in the House and S. 788 in the Senate, purports to “prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation.” To do that, it would enshrine actual or perceived “sexual orientation and gender identity” into federal statutes. That would give homosexuality, transgenderism, and other perversions of human sexuality and gender the same protections as race or sex in employment, housing, public accommodations, and more. Incredibly, the legislation specifically states that religious freedom may not be used as a defense under the bill. And it applies to churches, religious schools, religious hospitals, religious employers, gathering places, sports, all government entities, and more.
Among other changes, the so-called Equality Act, also known as H.R. 5 in the House and S. 788 in the Senate, purports to “prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation.” To do that, it would enshrine actual or perceived “sexual orientation and gender identity” into federal statutes. That would give homosexuality, transgenderism, and other perversions of human sexuality and gender the same protections as race or sex in employment, housing, public accommodations, and more. Incredibly, the legislation specifically states that religious freedom may not be used as a defense under the bill. And it applies to churches, religious schools, religious hospitals, religious employers, gathering places, sports, all government entities, and more.
Go to the article and read more.
I am not sure why we're even discussing religions in the 21st century. We don't discuss witchcraft and reincarnation anymore. Time to drop the charade.
When you break the employment laws, you break the law, it does not matter if you are a Christian, Wiccan, Buddist or a Jew.
Your personal religious beliefs and/or superstitions are irrelevant.
Obey the law, or be prepared to pay the piper.
Be civil, don't discriminate people. Drop the 'Christian - Love your neighbor' act. Hire people based on their skills, not what your Bronze Age scriptures say.
BTW, why are you stopping at not hiring gays, shouldn't you be killing them? You want to break some laws but not the others?
Make up your mind. Either follow your Bible in its entirety or don't follow it at all.
Otherwise, you are just like the slave traders from a few centuries ago, they too used the Bible to justify their horrendous acts.
The only way to properly judge the various religious activities of the various religions, is to judge them according to what they say. You can't judge Muslims according to Christian standards, or Christians according to Buddhist standards. Religious equality should be based on what the religions say.
Since people are physically built approximately the same, they should be judged according to how they treat other people, even though their religions might be drastically different.
Since it is mostly atheists who want to bring about religious persecution by promoting lack of religious freedom, they are the ones who fit their own religion of non-religion the best.
"Equality Act" Seeks Federal Persecution of Christians
Go to the article and read more.
Since people are physically built approximately the same, they should be judged according to how they treat other people, even though their religions might be drastically different.
Since it is mostly atheists who want to bring about religious persecution by promoting lack of religious freedom, they are the ones who fit their own religion of non-religion the best.
"Equality Act" Seeks Federal Persecution of Christians
Democrats in Congress are pushing “equality” legislation that critics say would criminalize Christianity, Islam, and Judaism by forcing virtually every institution in society — including religious institutions — to hire, serve, and promote homosexuals and individuals confused about their gender. A number of analysts have warned that by enshrining “sexual orientation” in the statute, even pedophilia and pederasty could be protected. In the House of Representatives, Democrats already have more than enough co-sponsors to pass the bill. And in the Senate, they are getting very close. But a massive coalition of critics from across the political spectrum and a broad array of religious traditions is rising up to stop it before it is too late.
Among other changes, the so-called Equality Act, also known as H.R. 5 in the House and S. 788 in the Senate, purports to “prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation.” To do that, it would enshrine actual or perceived “sexual orientation and gender identity” into federal statutes. That would give homosexuality, transgenderism, and other perversions of human sexuality and gender the same protections as race or sex in employment, housing, public accommodations, and more. Incredibly, the legislation specifically states that religious freedom may not be used as a defense under the bill. And it applies to churches, religious schools, religious hospitals, religious employers, gathering places, sports, all government entities, and more.
Among other changes, the so-called Equality Act, also known as H.R. 5 in the House and S. 788 in the Senate, purports to “prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation.” To do that, it would enshrine actual or perceived “sexual orientation and gender identity” into federal statutes. That would give homosexuality, transgenderism, and other perversions of human sexuality and gender the same protections as race or sex in employment, housing, public accommodations, and more. Incredibly, the legislation specifically states that religious freedom may not be used as a defense under the bill. And it applies to churches, religious schools, religious hospitals, religious employers, gathering places, sports, all government entities, and more.
Go to the article and read more.
True, you are probably one of the few people who keep claiming science did or say that but never actually provide any links or studies and you are shown how wrong you are every single time, then you say something like, ahh but we don't know if those studies are right, bla bla.
Thank you. You are just like many scientists who want to hide aspects of the truth. You only show the stuff you want, but just can't seem to find the stuff you don't like.
Well at least I show something, you keep making outrageous claims and never show anything. You keep saying idiotic shit like science is proving creationism and other stupid shit when scientists are the group with most atheists, are you actually insane?
Of course you show something. You show that you can't even do research. This shows that most of your talk is meaningless. But if it has meaning, it is just by accident.
Well it might show that however since you don't actually come up with any studies, it shows you are just a lying person who doesn't even try to use research.
True, you are probably one of the few people who keep claiming science did or say that but never actually provide any links or studies and you are shown how wrong you are every single time, then you say something like, ahh but we don't know if those studies are right, bla bla.
Thank you. You are just like many scientists who want to hide aspects of the truth. You only show the stuff you want, but just can't seem to find the stuff you don't like.
Well at least I show something, you keep making outrageous claims and never show anything. You keep saying idiotic shit like science is proving creationism and other stupid shit when scientists are the group with most atheists, are you actually insane?
Of course you show something. You show that you can't even do research. This shows that most of your talk is meaningless. But if it has meaning, it is just by accident.
True, you are probably one of the few people who keep claiming science did or say that but never actually provide any links or studies and you are shown how wrong you are every single time, then you say something like, ahh but we don't know if those studies are right, bla bla.
Thank you. You are just like many scientists who want to hide aspects of the truth. You only show the stuff you want, but just can't seem to find the stuff you don't like.
Well at least I show something, you keep making outrageous claims and never show anything. You keep saying idiotic shit like science is proving creationism and other stupid shit when scientists are the group with most atheists, are you actually insane?
True, you are probably one of the few people who keep claiming science did or say that but never actually provide any links or studies and you are shown how wrong you are every single time, then you say something like, ahh but we don't know if those studies are right, bla bla.
Thank you. You are just like many scientists who want to hide aspects of the truth. You only show the stuff you want, but just can't seem to find the stuff you don't like.
^^^ Your expressed view is quite unscientific. After all, science is starting to suggest that there is such a thing as a spirit in each one of us.
Right... when exactly has science done that? I would like to know, perhaps you can show us. Science suggests that death is, well, death, nothingness, there is nothing right now that suggests there is something else after death, not that it can't be possible since we don't know everything but if we are talking about what science suggests, that's what it suggests.
So, you've been to the library, eh? But do you know how to use an Internet search engine?
Yes and it says that science does not suggest there is a soul/spirit in each human.
Good cover. After all, many people don't want to embarrass themselves by admitting straight out that they don't know how to use an Internet search engine.
True, you are probably one of the few people who keep claiming science did or say that but never actually provide any links or studies and you are shown how wrong you are every single time, then you say something like, ahh but we don't know if those studies are right, bla bla.
^^^ Your expressed view is quite unscientific. After all, science is starting to suggest that there is such a thing as a spirit in each one of us.
Right... when exactly has science done that? I would like to know, perhaps you can show us. Science suggests that death is, well, death, nothingness, there is nothing right now that suggests there is something else after death, not that it can't be possible since we don't know everything but if we are talking about what science suggests, that's what it suggests.
So, you've been to the library, eh? But do you know how to use an Internet search engine?
Yes and it says that science does not suggest there is a soul/spirit in each human.
Good cover. After all, many people don't want to embarrass themselves by admitting straight out that they don't know how to use an Internet search engine.
^^^ Your expressed view is quite unscientific. After all, science is starting to suggest that there is such a thing as a spirit in each one of us.
Right... when exactly has science done that? I would like to know, perhaps you can show us. Science suggests that death is, well, death, nothingness, there is nothing right now that suggests there is something else after death, not that it can't be possible since we don't know everything but if we are talking about what science suggests, that's what it suggests.
So, you've been to the library, eh? But do you know how to use an Internet search engine?
Yes and it says that science does not suggest there is a soul/spirit in each human.
^^^ Your expressed view is quite unscientific. After all, science is starting to suggest that there is such a thing as a spirit in each one of us.
Right... when exactly has science done that? I would like to know, perhaps you can show us. Science suggests that death is, well, death, nothingness, there is nothing right now that suggests there is something else after death, not that it can't be possible since we don't know everything but if we are talking about what science suggests, that's what it suggests.
So, you've been to the library, eh? But do you know how to use an Internet search engine?
^^^ Your expressed view is quite unscientific. After all, science is starting to suggest that there is such a thing as a spirit in each one of us.
Right... when exactly has science done that? I would like to know, perhaps you can show us. Science suggests that death is, well, death, nothingness, there is nothing right now that suggests there is something else after death, not that it can't be possible since we don't know everything but if we are talking about what science suggests, that's what it suggests.
Jump to: