Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 385. (Read 901341 times)

i dont think so.
for me and with my experience, atheis not hate religion.
any religion... cause what?
religion have organize and law with God or with human.
and atheis dont want to have connection and to obidient with the oe=rganize or law from the religion it.

i dont think so.
for me and with my experience, atheis not hate religion.
any religion... cause what?
religion have organize and law with God or with human.
and atheis dont want to have connection and to obidient with the oe=rganize or law from the religion it.

Also relevant:


Take-home message: The language we use to describe the physical Universe is ultimately subject to semantic scrutiny.  One who relies solely upon the 'objectivness' of scientific theories without regard for the theoretical nature of the language used to express those theories ultimately butchers his understanding of them, and overlooks the inherent, fundamental relationship between objective content and the abstract models we form thereof.

The problems surrounding quantum theory are not mathematical. They stem instead from the unacceptable terminology that appears in presentations of the theory. Physical theories ought to be stated in precise terminology, free of ambiguity and vagueness. John Bell provides a list of insufficiently clear concepts in his essay “Against ‘measurement’”:

Here are some words which, however legitimate and necessary in application, have no place in a formulation with any pretension to physical precision: system, apparatus, environment, microscopic, macroscopic, reversible, irreversible, observable, information, measurement.

Textbook expositions of quantum theory make free use of these forbidden terms. But how, in the end, are we to determine whether something is a “system”, or is large enough to count as “macroscopic,” or whether an interaction constitutes a “measurement?” Bell’s fastidiousness about language is the outward expression of his concern about concepts. Sharp physical theories cannot be built out of vague notions.

How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment….

Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought,” “a priori givens,” etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long commonplace concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken.

WHY DO ATHEISTS (like me) HATE RELIGION ?

Seriously what has to happen in a person's life for them to seriously give up hope on the one true everlasting brand (of religion) which their ancestors have followed for generations.

Everyone has their own story even I have mine, so lets hear some of it.

Using the science of atheists to prove that God exists IS what good Christians DO to mind their own business. After all, their business is to spread God's business among all atheists, one way or another.

We love atheists. Their existence gives us purpose for our lives.

 

Christians need to learn to mind their own business if they want to be tolerated in twenty-first century society.

They will also need to accept twenty-first century ethics, which means they won't get to continue brainwashing children during formative years.

Currently, science believes officially that there is nothing more than the physical to life. All of the supposed consciousnesses and free-will activities are nothing more than bio-electric activities of the brain and nervous system. This means that everything operates by cause and effect. Why? Because some many things stimulated the brain and nervous system to act the way it did... produce the illusions that we call consciousness and free will.

However, even if science gets to the point where it literally discovers that there is some outer thing that is a part of us, and upholds or acts with or is upheld by the brain and nervous system, even then science will have to prove that this thing is not operating through cause and effect.

Cause and effect rules in everything that we see, know, and understand, especially in science. Even the quantum mechanics and quantum math that suggest that in some cases effect can come before cause, have to do with the manipulation of the order of things in the universe by mankind. Thus, there is cause and effect in all that seems to be the reverse order of cause and effect. But it is reverse cause and effect that is caused by man, making cause and effect to still rule.

What, if anything, was the Great First Cause that started things going?

----------

There is extreme complexity in the universe. This complexity includes the mind of mankind, the illusions of free will and emotion, math that is so great that we haven't been able to thoroughly calculate dimensions beyond 6 or 8, even though we have parts of as many as 30 dimensions or more, mathematically.

----------

We see nothing other than entropy in all things. Everything is wearing out, eroding, falling to pieces, etc.  The more complex something is, the faster it seems to wear out with regard to its complexity. This is why life doesn't last much more than a hundred years for people. Yet, in all this entropy, we don't see anything that could have started the complexity. The complexity is dying, but we don't see anything that could have started it.

If the mind of man wasn't so complex, if he wasn't so able mentally, then we might be able to say that whatever started the universe might have been backward. But this isn't the case. Even today, after thousands of years of entropy, the mind of man is still great. Obviously, by the way cause and effect, and entropy work together, the mind of man must have been far greater in the distant past. After all, entropy doesn't suggest evolution. It suggests devolution.

Because the mind of man - and even the whole universe - was far advanced in the past, much more than entropy has allowed it to remain, the THING that was able to start the whole universe going, the THING that was able to dictate the multiple thousands of years of cause and effect ('cause that's what we see in everything), and WHATEVER IT WAS that was able to produce such extreme complexity back then, must have been way more complex in itself that anything we see.

Advancement does not arise from entropy. And we see nothing other than entropy, operating through cause and effect. And a thing that could cause-and-effect the mind of man into existence way back before there was much entropy (or any), certainly falls into the category of God Almighty... at least with relation to anything that mankind can think of or be.

----------

If you don't like the above, change your science. Because what is above is essentially what the laws and facts of science say.

If you are going to go against pure science, you have a religion, you are operating in faith and belief rather than fact.

The closest thing you can say is "I don't believe God exists. It is an act of faith on my part, because science shows that He does." Some day we may have science that shows something different. But we don't have such now, or else don't use it at all today.