Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 279. (Read 901367 times)

You quoted the message that was not directed to you.

Aside from that: Science (and hence theories) come from the Fear of God
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_God

How can you have theories if you have no God?


Best regards.

I have no religion,  only theories none of which include any gods.  And any theories I do have also arent beliefs, just could be 's.. My religion isn't atheism like many people in this thread are getting to push.

Are you an atheist?


Best regards.

No, it is not cause if people were that skeptical then there wouldn't be any religions fucking around in 21st century.
you cannot chose any path if you don't have one and make it your believe that it's right.

Are you an atheist?

Best regards.

Can we get a date for your messiahs arrival?  Maybe once he misses the deadline you can think about an alternative religion?

I think atheism is the consequence of nihilism.

That will go away once the Messiah will come.


Best regards.

Thinking is surely not a religion but the 6th point he mentioned might be.Atheism has become the new religion nowadays.

Since man is a rational being, a creature of reason, it is obvious that GOD would want man to think. BADecker implies that thinking is a religion, but it is perfectly fair to ask BADecker "compared to what?" Another question to ask of him is "how can we know that you are not misleading us into a false religion? what is the fruit of such a belief? why should one choose a belief which is irrational and against reason, which denies man's basic virtue? is it balanced to equivocate opinion and reason?", etc.

Life is what it is; it passes into death and death passes into life in an endless cycle; rebirth is a key spiritual concept which was removed from the Bible by Pharisees; the evidence is not hard to find, but for you it may be hard to think about due to prior mental blocks and irrational devotion to authorities... It is hard to release one's fear of death because GOD is the author of goodness and life, HIS gifts are yours to enjoy in balance; similarly, it is all but impossible to release one's devotion to reason and thinking (unless you have been hypnotized, usually by an authority), and since Man is a creature of reason, and reason is another of GOD's gifts, then in any case one should be as wise as a serpent and never seek to die; GOD does not need any more martyrs and Jesus never meant to be a martyr either--he resisted his capture, but you would never suspect this if you only read 4 of the 28 written gospels, i.e. the four that were approved by the Church of Rome.

You figure it out. It is in the previous posts in this thread.


The moderation thing is a unit in itself.


Most people are devoted to their life. They struggle to keep from dying, especially when they know death is near.

People who are voluntary martyrs are even more devoted to what they are doing. After all, they have to fight their natural survival instinct.

What's so hard about this. You need to think life over a little more.



This can be accurate. Solomon says that if you are overly wicked, you will wind up destroying yourself. He also says that if you are overly righteous, you will wind up dying before your time. Ecclesiastes 7:16,17:

Who exactly has tried to say that no one can avoid being religious in real life??


What does moderation have to do with anything? If a homosexual moderates his desires, and yet "splurges" by occasionally having gay sex, does this make his life balanced and righteous? And why is it not "balanced" to be "devoted" to balance?? This definition only goes so far, and I will finally deconstruct it now:


You are religious only if you are "devoted". If you never "believe something too much", then you don't have a religion, then you are called "rational" since you can intelligently evaluate new ideas when presented.

If you look in the section titled "What is Atheism" in Atheism and Secularity, Vol. 1, you will see that to be "agnostic" means nothing more than to be "rational". I doubt that you will be able to transform "lack of belief" or "uncertainty about a belief" into "devotional belief" with the use of reason. But then again, I do not EXPECT you to be rational since you are more religious than me! This reminds me of Einstein's conversation with the Indian poet Tagore wherein Einstein exclaimed "I am more religious than you!"; Einstein believed in an objective order which existed independently of the mind while admitting that he did not fully understand the meaning of this mysterious belief while Tagore believed in the "universal man" who beholds all things and for whom the unknown is totally nonexistent. To be devoted only means that you go beyond what is known and what is rational; that is the essence of religion. Mere "belief" does not suffice; if you question me about the weather, I will tell you the truth with devotion; that means that my religion is truth and that it is perfectly rational to respond in defense of the truth, even if it appears a bit silly.

The fact that you express your views whatever they are over and over shows that you have a religion in your views. Your views are the doctrine of your religion. In the definition of "religion," as I stated above, religion is "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

Here you are, devotedly responding that you don't have any religion. But the way you are devotedly responding says that you do, according to the definition of religion.


According to the definition of "religion," if a lawyer "believes in and follows devotedly" some things regarding law, he has his own personal religion therein. And it is even deeper with a lawyer, because law often pertains to "a point or matter of ethics or conscience."



This is what I and many others are trying to tell you. The only way that might come close to suggesting that you have no religion is if you live your life spontaneously all the time. But this would still be your religion.

Solomon in the Old Testament, and Saint Paul in the New Testament, both suggested that we are to live a life of moderation. The only way to live moderation moderately is to splurge once in awhile.

Your life is your religion, even if you have no formal religion.

I don't believe in anything or follow it devotedly (maybe bitcoin, but I don't believe anyone would believe bitcoin is a religion). I'm explaining my own views because you keep ascribing me views that I don't have.

Is it religion to prove you are innocent of some action or thought? Does every lawyer believe that the law is a god? Yet they "constantly explain and defend" what they mean.

You seem to believe that any action one takes suggests religion? Are there any actions one can take that *do not* suggest religion? Or suggest *no religion*?

That question has an obvious answer:
There is only one ANYTHING, so there can be no thing outside of THAT. The Creation is a part of the Creator and the Creator a part of the Creation; Jesus stated that YOU are a Creator, so the point is to reach out and touch someone--like GOD. There can be an "invisible" or "virtual" universe "within" the universe, but certainly there cannot be a non-universe (e.g. without the universe or outside of it).

No need to use "String Theory"; Bohm's pilot wave theory suffices to explain the phenomena of Orch OR and quantum biology with the nonlocality explained by both future phase (retrocausal) and history phase (causal) waves; research is ongoing and it is certainly an exciting time to be a theorist (or even a layman)!

Have a look at Bohm's theory as summarized in the
Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Physics

"as far as you are concerned"?  
You could concern yourself with studying the Orch OR theory and THEN you would understand that QM does apply to the mind; this study of quantum biology and consciousness is actually a mature field, I saw a paper criticizing the "Myth" of quantum consciousness published in 1992 and there has been massive progress since then; notably, researchers have observed evidence which has refuted some of the key criticisms leveled against Orch OR. You do not concern yourself with the theory of Orch OR, so your opinion is not valuable for our discussion. You do not state precisely why you dismiss this theory. In fact, recent observations of microtubules definitively show that this is a very sound theory; Hammeroff considers paramecium in his writings on Huffington Post, and that is a very powerful example of quantum biology. Photosynthesis is another example of quantum biology confirmed by research; I perceive that you do not know enough about this theory (Orch OR) to say whether or not it is "veritable". I am telling you that Orch OR is a part of a sound metaphysics of mind and is being validated by findings in quantum biology; why would you express that you doubt my claim unless you had a genuine objection to the evidence thereof? I have not heard any objections to Orch OR, so I perceive that you promote a fallacy which is called "argument from ignorance" and cloak it with "point of view" instead of reading it ALL so that you can judge in wisdom of knowledge. "As far as I am concerned", you simply do not wish to study the evidence before declaring your opinion and apparent prejudice. Kindly take a look at the Huffington Post articles from Hammeroff and the associated comments; does your point of view have value when compared to the evidence of quantum biology? Let's talk about it and then maybe you can change my point of view. To be clear, I do believe that the hard problem of consciousness is solvable with the tools and theories we presently have available; some theorists have even claimed a solution!

Could someone tell me: Why do atheists hate quantum biology?  

This view is also held by every good scientist that uses quantum mechanics. Why? Because as Brian Cox explains in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo, QM is simply complex probability. Probability explains nothing factually. It only offers the investigator some ideas about what might be true, so that he can go about proving it through regular channels.

Generally speaking, most of the scientists who investigate things, do not investigate the depths of consciousness and the mind. Scientists are directed by the schools where they train to be more materialistically minded.

If a "mind scientist" had enough incentive, he might apply QM to his investigation of mind so that he could get some ideas about how to go further in his investigations.

this is just my point of view.
the human consciousness is not something that can be definitely quantified and explained, and as far as im concerned, quantum mechanics is a specialized theory dealing in the state of extremely small particles at a given time. that view of mine is not something that will not change, not until a veritable theory linking the human mind to a quantifiable explanation is found. so far, i dont think this is something that will be achieved anytime soon, perhaps in the next decade, but its a mystery as far as im concerned.

And that is just getting started. If you wanted to apply QM to consciousness via String Theory, you would see that the whole universe has consciousness. The question is, does God have consciousness outside of the universe (remember, universe means everything)?

You forgot to read the little line that I said, pointing at the definition of the word religion. Read number 6 in the definition of religion quoted above. It says, "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice." Don't take my word for it. Go to the link and look up the definition for yourself.

The fact that you are constantly explaining and defending what you believe - it doesn't matter what it is - shows that you have religion. If you happen to include some of the other definition points in your religious beliefs, your religion is even stronger.