Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 313. (Read 901367 times)

We already agreed at page 76:

Just like how some Christians criticize Atheists for not believing in God, they do the same to us. I am Catholic myself, but I think it's God's choice on to choose a person's religion. Some Atheists just don't believe in religion, but don't criticize others for believing, but then get tired of the believers who try to change them so much. I've seen that happen to a friend of mine multiple times.

Whether God exists or not, religion is just something to give you hope and faith and to keep you going when things look bad. Atheists can be two things: someone who feels that they don't need hope or faith and just want to go on living life as it is, OR someone who has had a bad life, tried faith, but had no success, so they blame religion for not 'helping' them.

I'm not saying that all Atheists are bad though. I'm just talking about the Atheists that legendster is questioning about - the ones who hate religion. To the ones who simply just don't believe in religion, but doesn't hate it either, I respect your beliefs.

And again changing the subject.

Quoting myself replying to BADecker at page 77 of this thread (August 2015 - I will post the quote, but I've already lost 2 months on this, so I'm trying to do something else... I have a life.): atheists are the enemies, don't confuse your opponents.

If you want to reply to my last question: I wanted to know if you agreed with God's plan of not putting a King over Israel (and probably to the World), I said that:

which stupid (atheist) people call it: "a rhetorical question".

Thank You.


Best regards.

God will give the kingship of David to Jesus. This kingship will be over the true people of Israel, those who believe in the salvation of Jesus.

God's original plan always was to be king... through Jesus-God. It was the people of ancient Israel who asked for an earthly king other than God. And in these present times, it is people like you who ask for an earthly king. You simply changed the name of his title to "Pope."

It's our Bible religion discussion in this atheist thread that makes atheists angry with religion even more.

I wasn't looking at what you were responding to, solely to your post:


Jesus is the king, Lord of us all.

How is it "gay" to site the bible?

Yeah I didn't wanted to change the subject, I didn't wanted to look gay either by citing the Bible.

I wanted to know if you agreed with God's plan of not putting a King over Israel, you replied by changing the subject and discussing about Jesus Christ that came 1000 years after King David.

But if we are in an atheists thread do we have all problems with understanding? Don't we?


Thank You.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him"

Philippians 2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

So you basically disagree with God?

He didn't want a king over Israel:


Thank You.

We do, His name of Jesus Christ. He defeated Satan and all evil, and is making a home for us, and will come back to get us soon.

For a long time, now, 1aguar has been claiming that Jesus of the Bible is not the Christ, and does not save. He's wrong. He simply doesn't want to acknowledge the fact that Jesus is the only way to the Father... the only Savior.

At best, 1aguar is only a sales person for the Phoenix Journals in book form. At worst, he is dragging people away from salvation.

From the Bible New Testament, John 10:1-18, Jesus speaking:
Note verse 6, above: "Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them." In other words, Jesus was speaking in allegories. Jesus mostly spoke in parables and allegories so that people could come to an understanding by thinking rather than simply by being told, as the Phoenix Journals attempt to do to people, by leading them blindly.

When you place the above Bible passages in context with everything else written in the New Testament, you will find that Jesus was a man, sent from His Father (therefore also God), lived a completely righteous life, died an innocent death on a cross, arose to life on the third day after his death, and ascended into Heaven 40 days later.

From there Jesus offers eternal life to all who believe in Him. The Holy Spirit (Who was sent to us by Jesus and His Father) is the witness to our hearts that everything that the Bible says is truth.

Hi MMH,
I see that you persist in this "Doctrine of Christ"; actually, this doctrine is not of God.
You tell me that I am not a "Christian" unless I believe in a "savior" but you don't realize that "Christianity" is the biggest lie of all, you have been lied to, sister--and it is time you sit up and take note.
If I see that what you teach differs from what I believe--it is my responsibility to see how and where it differs--FIRST, and then suggest you consider other perspectives perchance you, or me, are misguided as to the Truth of God and the Creation.

I have six points to make against that "Doctrine of Christ":

1) He did not EVER ONCE suggest he was your SAVIOR.
2) He represented the Christ Path of Truth and Godness--he NEVER CLAIMED TO BE GOD. IN FACT AT HIS
TRIAL WHEN ASKED IF HE WAS GOD HE SAID, “THEY say as much."
3) The New Commandment says "follow my example", "love others as I have loved you"; there is no Commandment to believe in a savior. It is sufficient to follow the Commandment he gave; is this not what is meant by "take up your cross"?
4) The term Satan only denotes “adversary” and even according to your tampered “Bibles” it says that Lucifer was a perfection and creation (son) of God who was cast out of Heaven. If you also say that Jesus was the son of God--how do you explain the absence of some type of brotherhood if both spring from the same source?
5) The “Christed teacher” said that only through Grace would you be “saved”--the Grace of God. He told you he was only an intercessor in your behalf for you were ignorant and knew not that which you did. He also said that only through the Christed path could you find your way back to Godness. He could not have said “except through me, Jesus” for his name was Emmanuel of the house of Joseph. Further, since “Christ” is a “state of being” and not a “NAME” it becomes more obvious that the Man speaking the instructions actually said that only through the Christed path will you be granted GRACE! Moreover, YOUR BIBLE says in addition, that only through “. . . works can a man be known” and “faith without works is without meaning.”
6) Most important of all the things which were gifted unto you by God was "reason". You shall not dump your sins and errors, evil and law-breaking actions upon a MAN by any name--dead or alive. EACH BEING WILL STAND IN JUDGMENT OF SELF, NAKED AND BARE BEFORE GOD AND ANSWER FOR THAT WHICH HE HAS DONE. God’s laws and regulations will go on a page, dear friend and that which deviates in any manner what-so-ever from the Laws of God and Creation is not of God. If the shoes of sanctity fit--I suggest you take them out of your mouth and place them on your feet.

Quoting from Phoenix Journals:

I don't think you will wipe out all 52 points of evidence by calling it make-believe,
and I don't believe there is any science to support your position on this subject (point #34, #35).
I have given you just five important points to consider; perhaps you could reply just to those ones.
I perceive that you are choosing not to engage me in a rational discussion. So be it.

In all reality, the evidence is powerful enough to sway anyone who wants to carefully examine all of it in a rational manner.
The only conclusion supported by all 52 points of evidence is that there is life after death.
If you disagree, then please behave rationally so that we can talk about it--ALL OF IT.

"This remarkable [compilation of evidence] details what modern physics tells us about the underlying nature of the universe and its creation, what virtually every religious and philosophical group tells us about life and death, and results from a host of research findings."

I am using reason to evaluate the facts;
my beliefs are backed by scientific evidence, not faith and fantasy.
As for skeptics, they would prefer to ignore the evidence as you are doing.
But now I have made it easy for you: please reply to the 5 points and we can move this discussion forward.

I don't think our discussion is over unless you want to quit;
you have refused to address most of the evidence, so I will highlight the important parts for you.
I am definitely interested in learning about how the brain works to produce the NDE.
Let's see if you can explain it to me:

You once again claim that the NDE can be explained by brain chemistry alone;
Again, your claim is NOT A FACT, and it is obvious that you did not read too much of the evidence.
If your claim were true, you would be able to reply to all 52 of these points with ease,
but since you cannot, would you please reply by providing a valid reason to reject the evidence
that provides the first point for my proof, i.e. life after death?

You can start by providing valid reasons to doubt the salient points #1, #2, #32, #34, and #35:
1.   People have NDEs while they are brain dead.
2.   Out-of-body perception during NDEs have been verified.
32.   NDEs cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone.
34.   The skeptical "dying brain" theory of NDEs has major flaws.
35.   Skeptical arguments against NDEs are not valid.

I am a supreme being to you..because i know more than you so that makes me more of a supreme being than you are..because what you believe in is all MAKE BELIEVE ..
so i am more supreme than you a joke by the way I am just smarter than you your beliefs about a god are stupid and make no sense  

so av a nice day and take it easy

NOW YOU HAVE JUST TRIPPED UP THERE BEEN WAITING FOR YOU TO SAY THAT

1) Since you did not quote my proof and point out how one point does not logically follow another, I feel you should read that first and respond in such a manner, then I will be able to answer this question.
2) Sight is not the only sense by which one can determine the nature of shapes; one can also do it by feeling and also by imagination, as described in the movie "Flatland". So since you are asking how she could have possibly known what a tube looks like, then would you not agree that indeed it seems that this person ACTUALLY PERCEIVED A TUBE?

So now you know how she could describe things in her dream..
remember i said before you die it could be the brains way of making you feel comfortable before you die..
remember I am an NDE..but still i don.t believe in god..
when people take LSD they see things they have never ever seen before. The brain makes it up how does it do this if you have never seen this before..
have you not had a dream and its been so real you want to go back asleep to get back to your dream..
have you ever dreamed of a person you have never met before ANSWER YES BILLIONS OF PEOPLE DO THIS..so how have you dreamt of someone you have never met before..BECAUSE THE BRAIN IS GOOD AT MAKING THINGS UP
its how the brain works if your a human..
also when NDEs describe the afterlife why are they not all going to the same place and see the same things..some say they saw there mums ..there granddads ..there friends..why all different..
So you see you have described how a blind person can see..now what is so hard to say the brain now can make the rest up if your a sleep or dying..
just like seeing someone in a dream you have never met before how do we do this then?

WHEN YOUR IN A DEEP SLEEP ITS LIKE YOUR DEAD
 and we all dream and we dream of things that we have never seen before.. like new places and new faces .. you can even have a new life in a dream.. and you wake up some times and your happy you woke up because its was a bad dream and sometimes you can have a good dream where you try go back asleep..
so i have explained every thing for you but you still refuse to GET REAL

Hey, that is not an accurate summary; this summary below could be fair, but I still advise that you read the whole proof and quote from it if you have a disagreement with the logic...
In answering the God-question ("either yes or no"), I am making an argument in favor of theism because all atheists are wrong, due to:
1) all rational atheists are humanists and
2) humanism (the idea that a rational being called Man is the founder and guarantor of knowledge) has been discredited by the 52 points of evidence (among others) as described here:
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a36

My definition: A supreme being who is the founder and guarantor of knowledge.
My proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.5300

Let us observe how you have not made your case at all; consider that this is only one point of 52...

1) Since you did not quote my proof and point out how one point does not logically follow another, I feel you should read that first and respond in such a manner, then I will be able to answer this question.
2) Sight is not the only sense by which one can determine the nature of shapes; one can also do it by feeling and also by imagination, as described in the movie "Flatland". So since you are asking how she could have possibly known what a tube looks like, then would you not agree that indeed it seems that this person ACTUALLY PERCEIVED A TUBE?
3) I don't know, but I would ask you this question: How exactly are dreams related to perception of light? She commented that her experience was "the only time I could ever relate to seeing and to what light was, because I experienced it." And because NDEs do not share the characteristics of imagined memories (point #52), and they also change people unlike dreams (point #31), it stands to reason that real perception of light occurred. You can further observe that there is evidence of veridical perception in NDE, as per the AWARE study referenced in the introduction and points throughout the near-death site.
4) I do not make any claims about the nature of dreams or anything like that; however, I will repeat my point #3 above which distinguishes between the imagination and perception. It is good that you are asking questions, but I do not think your questions are very useful for our understanding of point #3 unless you provide an explanation of veridical perception during NDE as well. It seems that you are trying to again imply that these are imagined events when point #52 and others clearly demonstrate that they are not.

he is saying when you die there is an after life so there must be a god..
he says a blind women described an after life when how could she if she was born blind?
so i am telling him why i think he is still wrong  
take a look what he is saying..
 http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a35

Michael Jackson...PEDOs...Blind girls....?

I thought the topic was, "Why do Atheists hate Religion ?"

YES MICHAEL JACKSON..He is saying he hates him self for being a PEDO..he wants to change..
listen to his music some of his songs are about himself he hates the way he is..well was A PEDO..fact

Also the blind girl described getting sucked into a tube..how does she know what a tube is to describe getting sucked into a tube if she was always blind..
Also as she ever dreamt in her sleep when she goes to bed to sleep?
So according to you if she was a sleep she would just see BLACK and no dreams?