Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 217. (Read 901362 times)

I'm sure I have responded one way or another to any question you might be asking.

This being said, thanks again for showing that you don't have any science that refutes the scientifically proven fact that God exists... AND for helping me to expand the knowledge of this by not expressing any refutation that you might have.

No one here has proven god exists.



I don't need or even want to prove god doesn't exist. Who knows, a universe creating god that meddles in human affairs might really exist, and it would be *very* interesting times if that was the case! No, I just need to show that a given "proof" that god does exist is in some way logically or scientifically incorrect.

If I happen to miss responding to one of your posts that helps to prove that God exists, please don't take it personally. The thanks is meant to cover even those posts.

So, thank you, again, for not refuting the fact that science has proven that God exists... since your continual attempts to circumvent any refuting that you might do are essentially, strengthening of the proofs.

Any chance you'll respond to any of my questions any time soon? Do you have no answer for logical objections?

Scientists who investigate human relations don't have faith that a given husband will be faithful to a given wife. Having faith that your *own* wife is faithful is outside of science.



Bullshit. Investigations into the nature of gravity are still on going. If scientists had faith that they knew all about gravity, they wouldn't bother investigating it.

Well, thank you again, for helping to prove that God exists, by attempting to take the focus off the science that proves it. Hopefully more and more people will wake up to the fact that God does exist. God even appreciates you for the help you are giving in this area.

I've made no proof that god exists. You're lying -- unless you'd like to quote the section where I did that?


I don't just "focus on you". I also respond to BitNow, and anyone who posts unsupportable and made up "facts".




I don't need or even want to prove god doesn't exist. Who knows, a universe creating god that meddles in human affairs might really exist, and it would be *very* interesting times if that was the case! No, I just need to show that a given "proof" that god does exist is in some way logically or scientifically incorrect.

So you don't think that atheists in general hate religious people in general? Finally, something we can agree on. I might not agree with your method of discussion, but I agree with the characterisation you give here - most atheists I've met don't even think about gods.


I don't agree with your definition of religion (ie that having a religion just means spending time arguing about something -- which means, by the way, that  for example that all lawyers follow law as a religion, all politicians have political action as a religion) but even by your definition if many atheists "barely consider their atheism" then how can it be a religion to them?


I'm not sure how you could know that -- unless you have been an atheist?


Has anyone actually said that? I'm fairly certain that you just made that up, and that no atheist ever said that to you.

Scientists are not robots. They have lots of faith. Ask their husbands and wives. Many of them will tell you truthfully that their spouse is faithful - full of faith.

Faith in gravity is built-in. It is beyond hope. Why do we have faith in gravity? Because we don't really know for a fact that it will keep on working for us. The example and experience is that it has in the past. But we still don't know about the future, even though we are comfortable in thinking we do.

I Corinthians 13:13:

Thank you, again, for more confirmation of the scientifically proven fact that God exists. Rather than focus on disproving it, you focus on me, and maybe yourself. Why do you do this? Simply because you don't have any real evidence that the science I have expressed DOESN'T prove that God exists.

Thanks again.

When science uses math, it uses virtual reality. Math doesn't work in reality... at least not the standard math that we have. The thing that happens is, scientists figure things out in the virtual reality, and apply them without the virtual reality to real life. Some of them work. As the math gets more complex, less of it works in reality.

However, it isn't only the scientists that do this. Kids in school adapt to the Internet so extremely well, because subconsciously they have recognized that the Internet is great virtual reality, just like the math that they have been learning. Their subconscious applies the virtual reality of math to the virtual reality of the Internet, and they thrive on it.

Women are practical. Often women don't understand math very well. Check the statistics. Girls in school generally have a much harder time understanding math. It's because they are way more practical with reality. They don't understand the virtual reality that math is because of how practical they are.

That is part of the point. Many atheists don't hate religion. These are the ones who barely consider their atheism.

The atheists who hate religion are far more atheistic than the ones who barely consider atheism. Both of them have their religion. Those of them who hate religion, are far more into the religion of atheism than those who don't. They are also far more into hating themselves.

"Leave me alone," they say. "Let me squander the little bit of life I have, before I wind up destroying myself completely, just to get away from the religion that I am."

Obviously, both kinds have faith. They simply have faith in different things.


Now you are telling us you haven't met any scientists.



You've never met them. You've talked to them a great deal by phone or letter, then? How else would you know about their arrogance or lack of it? Are you a mind reader who focuses on scientists?

Faith is when your mind doesn't know but your heart tells you so.
Scientists don't hink with their heart but with their brain. So they can't have faith. That would be a nonsense.

Of course they sometimes have faith in their theories and that's why they do test it. But they just have faith in their vision of the world, then they test, and they know if they're wrong or right.

But we don't have faith in gravity BADecker xD

No. I've never met a scientist arrogant enough to *have faith* they're right. There will be undoubtedly be some, but the ones i know *hope* they're right. If they had faith they were right, they wouldn't bother with experiments since that would be a waste of time.

Replace "faith" with "hope" in your statement above and you'll be nearer the mark.

Not really rare, no.



I've made my agenda clear. I'm not pro anything other than truth and logic, and I'll always own up to it. I have made no misleading posts.


No, you're two people who have such ossified thinking that I won't be able to change your mind.


Again, no. Your statements are unsupported, and many unsupportable. They are opinions until you can prove them to be otherwise.


Subtle ad hominem attacks? If they're subtle, they can't be very attacky, can they?

Seriously though, if you take the piss -- which you regularly do -- I may respond in kind, if I can be bothered. But that's not an "ad hominem attack" -- I'm not trying to prove a point or make an agument if I call you a callous dolt.

OTOH your posts recently always do make ad hominem attacks, and not very subtly either.


I have tried to have that discussion with you, but every time I ask you to prove an assertion you fail to do so, and get all cranky and eventually just call your assertion a fact.


I'm not focussing on you and it's egotistical to think so. You post here a lot. I'm responding to your posts. If you want to start another discussion about the proof of god, go ahead.


You don't express science, and you have made no arguments. You just make statements and fail to prove them. That's not an argument, it's lecturing. If you can handle someone questioning your ideas, don't post.


I've made no ad hominem attacks, subtle or otherwise. I've called you names, sure ( egotistical, callous, unfeeling, incompetent, illogical, easily upset, childish,  are just a few that I've either used or consider using) but I haven't done so in the hopes of using that to win an argument. You do.

Perfect! The answer is here! You refute Science and maths.

I don't think it's necessary to go further with you on this debate. You clearly live in a different world.

What else can I do? I can try to keep your wandering mind on topic. What proof is there that Atheists hate Religion?

Of course the scientist doesn't have faith an answer can be found, she has hopes and expectations. If she had faith, she wouldn't bother looking.



Every scientist I've ever met.


Again, no. Maybe some scientists have faith they will find what they're looking for, but I've never met them. They all hope to make discoveries, but none of them are arrogant enough to have faith that they'll be the ones to do it.