Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 2. (Read 901291 times)

Atheism or also called atheism is a view, they assume that God does not exist. Atheists are not something new, they have been around since around 1000 BC.

They claim that religious people will think God is perfect, but often portray this in contradictory and incoherent ways. Many characteristics are associated with God, some of which are impossible and some combinations are just as impossible in their realistic mind.

We can only disprove the specific claims.

For example: 
1. World was created in 6 days.
Why is it false: Universe is at least 13.8 billion years old.

2. Jesus was resurrected.
Why is it false: Cell death is an irreversible process.

3. Snake talked in the past.
Why is it false: The anatomy of snakes prevents them from being able to talk.

4. Earth was created 10,000 years ago.
Why is it false: Human-made artifacts older than 30,000 have been found.  The evolution of life on Earth has been going on for at least 3.5 billion years.

5. Muhammad flew on Buraq to ...
Why is it false: Horses do not have wings and cannot fly.  Human and horse gametes would not produce viable offspring.

A general claim that X exists cannot be proven or disproven.  Most people who say that X exists do not even know how to define X.
And when they do, their definition usually differs from the definition given by other people who are convinced that X is something else.

Nothing is "impossible", it just hasn't been done yet. I believe in science. As that, I make no claims as to the existence or not of any deity or "higher power". I believe there isn't one, but I might be wrong.


Well, if we consider the wise (and technically accurate) words of "Morpheus", "reality is just a series of electrical impulses interpreted by your brain".
Nothing is "improbable": it just hasn't been proved (right or not) yet.


Nope. "Science" means "knowledge" in Latin (well, "scientia" did). As that, not being able to prove the existence of a given deity (or even of all deities) doesn't mean deities don't exist. Religions should be able to prove their respective god's existence, while atheism should be able to prove no gods actually exist. Until then, this is gonna remain a philosophical matter.

I don't think some atheists really hates really, from my observation I think they dislike religion extremist, religious people who take their religion believe to serious and try to be too sentimental about everything.

Finally, we are getting closer to the inner depths of your psychosis.

You almost contradict yourself directly.

What do meteorites do when they hit the atmosphere? They break up, exploding somewhat.

What do meteorites do when they hit the ground? Explode into the atmosphere.

What do plants suck in when there is C-14 in the atmosphere? C-14.

What don't plants suck in if the atmosphere is not conducive to making C-14 for some reason, and no C-14 meteorite hit? C-14.

God created the earth with a canopy of water around it. Why? to keep cosmic rays out, so people wouldn't be harmed by them. The Great Flood of Noah's day destroyed the canopy of water, and now we have C-14 and a much shorter life span, from?... cosmic rays.

Even you understand this from your church training.

It's also impossible to prove a negative, impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, and it isn't a burden on the atheists to disprove a god, it is on religious followers to prove any sort of higher power.

This is the game that religious believers will play, constantly shifting the burden onto any non-believers, asking them to do the impossible task of proving something that does not exist.


And it depends on how far you'd be willing to consider what is "real" and what is physically improbable. Nothing has to obey the laws of physics if you choose not to believe the premise of physics. Nothing has to obey evolutionary biology if you reject evolutionary biology as a premise. So the outlandish claims in the bible, or Quran, or whatever holy book may not seem so outlandish if you reject certain principles outright.


Well, again, the burden falls on those making the claim of god, not someone rejecting the notions of a higher power who do so on lack of evidence.

If a meteorite brought large amounts of C-14, it would be locked in rocks in the impact area, not in everything that contains carbon.

Instead, isotopes exist naturally in specific ratios.  That is why this dating method is extremely useful.

BTW, 'God' created jack squat.  Carbon-14 atoms are formed in the atmosphere from Nitrogen.  They are absorbed by plants, and subsequently, end up in every living thing.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~jaj/nucleo/
 

Actually, if we take atheism as the rejection of the belief in any deities, I'd say atheism is as unscientific as religion is.
There is a basic rule of science: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
At that, atheism is just the (wrong) belief that, because science has been unable to prove the existence of any such deities, they just don't exist.


Why, is it any better now, with religion?


Well, it could be argued that objective morality can ONLY be reached without religion, since a religious person will only be moral for fear of being punished, or because they're expecting to be rewarded.
In any case, the fact that a claim may be "outlandish" doesn't necessarily disprove it.
"If God wanted men to fly, he would've given him wings", was the belief in the early 1900s, against the Wright brothers' "outlandish" claims. Mel Brooks said "He would've given him tickets".


The burden of proof lies on everybody making a claim. Not being able to prove the existence of something doesn't necessarily disprove it.
Personally, I don't know if deities (or any specific deity) exist, so I believe (without any proof whatsoever) they don't. So I act as if they don't, and follow my own moral compass, without fear of retaliation or expectation of reward.

Atheism is as scientific as it gets. I'm not inclined to believe that without religion, the world would be a hellish landscape with no true "moral philosophy." That is to say, can objective morality ever be reached, and can it be reached without religion? I think so. And it can be reached through science because atheism is a science based approach to reality, not one of hearsay books or writing, outlandish stories, many of which are physically improbable (or downright impossible). It sounds like you're describing agnosticism, that we cannot prove or disprove God.

But really, the burden of proof lies on the religion fanatics. Considering they impose their religion on so much of their life, you think they'd have some reasoning to believe what they believe. Not just a belief because someone told them so, but actual evidence. Most just use religion as a moral guide or to have a sense of belonging. Not that it would effect anyone, but religion has led to the most pain and suffering in human history. It's possible that all this pain and suffering would have happened anyway, even if it wasn't in the name of god, because let's face it, humans were pretty animalistic before modern moral philosophy.

Basically and simply I am saying that nobody knows what happened in the distant past.

We don't know if C-14 wasn't dumped onto the earth in large quantity from a meteorite or not. We don't know if God created all the C-14 on the 4th day 7,500 years ago, just to make things work, or not.

We don't know if in the distant past, tree rings were formed every week... or if the times they were formed varied or not.

Atheists hate religion because having to obey Gods law offends them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

atheists love religion.

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

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

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

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