Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 378. (Read 901520 times)

I read the bible (in college) because I wanted to. I was raised Catholic, and have renounced the Catholic specific teachings. But, I have already asked myself what if God didn't exist, and the answer came back that God does exist. I feel bad for those who have not felt the power that the Holy Spirit gives. I feel bad for those who are still waiting for scientists to teach them about antimatter, when all you really need to know about that is in the bible.

Believing in the bible does not negate belief in scientific studies, no matter what Beliathon likes to say. It augments it.

I don't know about MakingMoneyHoney, but when I am born 3000 years ago, I'll let you know.   

They must have got to you young.  It's sad to see, but you have the freedom to subscribe to any ideology you wish.

My question is, if you were born 3000 years ago, what would you be referencing for religious guidance?

That depends whether there is any truth to Intelligent Design.

To use the words of Cameron, the "good" female cyborg in the Terminator - The Sarah Connor Chronicles series, "Thank you for explaining."

 

Look at me, I'm BADecker, stringing a few big words together without any coherent meaning makes me a scientist! Yippee!

Completely relevant. Why? Provided that they don't have some mental deterioration, their minds will have had 10,000 years to understand the simple sciences that show that God exists. These are (again) combined cause and effect, universe complexity, with entropy penetrating everything.

That's true, but you're missing the point entirely. When people are living to be age 10,000 and illness is a term only for the history books, how relevant do you think religion will be to folks like that?

One of the things that scientific enlightenment is finding out more than ever is, there is a whole lot more to the complexity of nature than anyone ever thought. And the more we find out, the greater we find the complexity to be.


However, the brink of war, the impending collapse of the money system (almost happened in 2008), the common law vs. civil law battle, and loads of other things suggest that research will collapse shortly, right along with the whole economy.

Back in the 1950s, the promise was that we would have fully operational bases on the moon within 20 years. Where are they?

Back in the 1920s, heart disease was going to be cured before the decade was out. Not even close.

Believe it when you see it, if even then.



The point is, if we actually have someone who lives until age 200 without any signs of aging, then we might begin to say that perhaps there is a slight chance we have conquered death. If somebody makes it to age 1,000, we might say we are on to something. However, as soon as someone dies, we have to admit that we haven't quite conquered death, even if it is at 10,000 years.

 Religion is an ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance.

Yet. The end of death may well come within your lifetime. Bringing the dead back to life may soon be a medical reality, with claims people may be able to be resuscitated up to 24 hours after their death.

Critical care physician Sam Parnia makes the claim in his book Erasing Death, saying resuscitation research is on the cusp of a major breakthrough within the next 20 years.

"With today's medicine, we can bring people back to life up to one, maybe two hours, sometimes even longer, after their heart stopped beating and they have thus died by circulatory failure. In the future, we will likely get better at reversing death," he told Germany's Spiegel magazine.

"It is possible that in 20 years, we may be able to restore people to life 12 hours or maybe even 24 hours after they have died. You could call that resurrection, if you will. But I still call it resuscitation science."

Currently the average resuscitation rates for cardiac arrest patients in the US is 18 percent, while in the U.K. it is 16 percent. But at Parnia's research base in New York that rate is between 33 percent and 38 percent.

"Most, but not all of our patients, get discharged with no neurological damage whatsoever," he said.

You're a human, yes?

Jesus arose from the dead to live forever. Nobody else can. Even the people that doctors seem to bring back to life now and again, die again. Humanity is not God.

You understand nothing. Not me, the individual, but humanity in the collective sense is God.

Just Beliathon, I know.


As I said, there are plenty of verses in the bible that say "Fear Not." God is not about fearing things, just having a reverence for the Glory that created us.

He created free will. If He didn't, you'd be mad you didn't have it.

Bu free will, is why people fall away and don't believe, and become rapers and murderers.

Atheists don't see themselfs as gods. 100% nonsense.

and atheists don' hate religion they just don't see the point of it.

Because religion is a form of control. To control people. To keep them in line.
Also to fear people. "don't do this or you will burn in hell".

It funny because god loves us all but he will let you burn in hell if you don't believe..
And altho god is allknowing he created us all so how come he created rapers and murderers??

god is a weirdo...

You claim yourself as God, because of science. You are blind to see. You are following a religion.

All these posts and you still have absolutely zero response to the rebuttal of your invalid unicorn analogy. 

Atheists are disorganized in a non-religious way to maintain the idea that there are no unicorns. Atheism is a religion. It is a non-religion where mankind is god, because it is mankind who, with the support of all evidence, concludes that there are no unicorns.

Mankind is god

That is an interesting point of view.  Do you think Atheists get together in a building once a week to discuss their ideas about religion?  Perhaps there are some that are active participants in voicing what they think, but I'd say the majority doesn't spend much time even thinking about religion and do not participate.

What is the "good evidence" that you're referring to?

Sam Harris makes a living off failed premises.  I've watched virtually every debate of his available on the Internet, and it's hardly impressive.  He is capable of shooting down idiotic religious claims (e.g. that we should trust in a holy book because a holy book says so, etc.), but this is nothing any other ordinary person can't do.  I've seen him challenged on a number of other points, however, and it's clear he doesn't have a thorough understanding of empirical philosophy in terms of origin, derivation, and limitations.  I wouldn't call his understanding of the limitations of scientific reasoning 'bad' by any means -- it's surely above average.  But he walks into the same pitfalls that Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, and (to a lesser extent) Christopher Hitchens do.  Those pitfalls commonly include appeals to low-hanging fruit which don't have a scientific basis to begin with, and invalid arguments about a lack of physical evidence being an open-and-shut case against Intelligent Design in general (the former necessitate deference to philosophical debate, and the latter necessitate deference to a waste basket).

I'd be happy to debate with Harris on these points.  Nobody should argue that there are many horrible ways in which religion manifests itself in the world, but everyone "should" contest the reasons he suggests to not believe in Intelligent Design.  To that extent, he makes a living from intellectual [ignorance and] dishonesty, and it does a disservice to rational debate in the most ironic of ways.

Harris should stick to just vilifying religious extremists, and that's about it.