Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 400. (Read 901367 times)

In my opinion the answer of this question is " Atheist hate religion because they don't believe in the existence of God" May be this is the reason of thier hatred and May be they are unhappy by some rules that describe by religion or may be there is some other reason.

How have you come to that conclusion? Give me an example; let's say the Islamic God Allah. How have you concluded this one is false?

I'm always interested in considering that I may be wrong. It is reassuring when one's continued questioning and study of new data and reasoning continues to lead one back to supporting the proposition that there is no evidence, no need, for a 'god' in this Universe and that those who believe such are provably employing intellectually dishonest reasoning to support their false argument.

If, however, things were to change and there was a whole new set of data I could incorporate into my understanding, such that I needed to modify my position substantially, I would always be open to doing so.

You are not. You have decided that your own subjective wishing and active confirmation bias is enough and all the myriad of contradictions and conflicts can just be swept under the carpet . . . because god. No thanks, I prefer not to have to make my subconscious mind continually wrestle with cognitive dissonance, it isn't healthy.

I think you'll find that atheists are actually considerably more qualified in the balance of consideration for your claims for god than you. Your assertions are simply, "He does because . . .[insert logical fallacy here]". We're not afraid of the answers to the questions we ask. You are, that's why you have no intellectual integrity and your world is constructed from 'woo'. Careful, it's not a particularly reliable building material, it is prone to crumbling when analysed by objective reasoning.

]

See, that's the thing, the moment I stopped looking for 'The Supernatural' I stopped seeing it, everywhere.

You, unfortunately, will dishonestly take that to mean I closed my eyes to the 'wonder of woo' when, the fact of the matter is, I simply stopped projecting my faulty assumptions and preconceived perceptions onto ordinary situations. When I began to practice intellectual honesty in order to more reliable understand Life, The Universe and Everything, I found that there were understandable answers for everything and none of it required invoking 'woo' and, in fact, 'woo' was clearly found to be one of the root causes of cognitive dissonance and confusion as, much like the Bible is chock-full of contradictions and conflicts, what with it being not one story but a collection of stories selected for inclusion by a group of men many centuries after the myths concerned were written, the introduction of 'woo' to try and explain anything simply becomes an infantile conflicting game of, "Because I say so!", rather than a route towards actual knowledge of The Universe.

My goodness, I take it you haven't actually read the damn thing, then? Do you even know the origins of that absurd publication?

Just so I know where you stand, do I turn the other cheek or is it 'an eye for an eye'?

Religious sex is not better than regular sex, get over it.

"tantric sex, is the modern, western variation of tantra often associated with new religious movements. This includes both New Age and modern Western interpretations of traditional Hindu and Buddhist tantra. Some of its proponents refer to ancient and traditional texts and principles"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neotantra

Sexual rites

Although equated with Tantra in the West, sexual rites were historically practiced by a minority of sects. For practicing groups, maithuna progressed into psychological symbolism.[54] According to White, the sexual rites of Vamamarga may have emerged from early Hindu Tantra as a means of catalyzing biochemical transformations in the body to facilitate heightened states of awareness.[54] These constitute an offering to Tantric deities. Later developments in the rite emphasize the primacy of bliss and divine union, which replace the bodily connotations of earlier forms.[54] This is clearly seen in Japanese tantra in Shingonshu of Tachikawa-ryu.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantra

Words well-rooted in compassion; worth meditating on.

Ultimate nirvana depends on people. Different people will have different ultimates. You should not try to make yours the ultimate for all. After all, sex can not always be ultimate nirvana as long as rape is alive.

After all, sex can not always be ultimate nirvana as long as rape is alive.

Tantric sex is not sex, that's your argument?

"Crossfit is not cardio!"

"Drag racing is not racing!"


All kinds [subsets] of sex are part of the greater set Sex.

Stop pulling a pigeon man, it's obnoxious and if you continue you will forfeit the privilege of conversing with me.

Incorrect.

Tantric sex is sex, ergo this question is fallacious.

If sex is the ultimate nirvana, then why is tantric sex (axiomatically) more blissful?

That's surprising, considering I have hundreds of hours of yoga and I'm a daily practitioner of Ericksonian meditation for over seven years.

Maybe I've been doing it wrong this whole time? Or perhaps you shouldn't go around making assumptions about internet strangers.

Then it is self-apparent you have never achieved a meditative state, which is infinitely more blissful by definition.

Nothing against meditation, but sex is the ultimate nirvana. This is a self-evident truth, like mathematics, and no lies you can write will ever change it.

What sane person, having achieved a meditative state, would believe an orgasm is a heavenly state?

That's standard religion protocol. If critical reasoning is not sufficiently impaired, the religion doesn't stick, it melts away in the face of everyday observation.

What sane person, having experienced five or six orgasms in a day, would believe there's any need for a heaven after death, when heaven is so obviously a place here on Earth?

That's terrible. The church has sealed your eyes, ears and mind tightly shut.

I'm always interested in considering that I may be wrong. It is reassuring when one's continued questioning and study of new data and reasoning continues to lead one back to supporting the proposition that there is no evidence, no need, for a 'god' in this Universe and that those who believe such are provably employing intellectually dishonest reasoning to support their false argument.

If, however, things were to change and there was a whole new set of data I could incorporate into my understanding, such that I needed to modify my position substantially, I would always be open to doing so.

You are not. You have decided that your own subjective wishing and active confirmation bias is enough and all the myriad of contradictions and conflicts can just be swept under the carpet . . . because god. No thanks, I prefer not to have to make my subconscious mind continually wrestle with cognitive dissonance, it isn't healthy.


I think you'll find that atheists are actually considerably more qualified in the balance of consideration for your claims for god than you. Your assertions are simply, "He does because . . .[insert logical fallacy here]". We're not afraid of the answers to the questions we ask. You are, that's why you have no intellectual integrity and your world is constructed from 'woo'. Careful, it's not a particularly reliable building material, it is prone to crumbling when analysed by objective reasoning.

]

See, that's the thing, the moment I stopped looking for 'The Supernatural' I stopped seeing it, everywhere.

You, unfortunately, will dishonestly take that to mean I closed my eyes to the 'wonder of woo' when, the fact of the matter is, I simply stopped projecting my faulty assumptions and preconceived perceptions onto ordinary situations. When I began to practice intellectual honesty in order to more reliable understand Life, The Universe and Everything, I found that there were understandable answers for everything and none of it required invoking 'woo' and, in fact, 'woo' was clearly found to be one of the root causes of cognitive dissonance and confusion as, much like the Bible is chock-full of contradictions and conflicts, what with it being not one story but a collection of stories selected for inclusion by a group of men many centuries after the myths concerned were written, the introduction of 'woo' to try and explain anything simply becomes an infantile conflicting game of, "Because I say so!", rather than a route towards actual knowledge of The Universe.


My goodness, I take it you haven't actually read the damn thing, then? Do you even know the origins of that absurd publication?

Just so I know where you stand, do I turn the other cheek or is it 'an eye for an eye'?

Exactly. This is got to be one of the worst attitudes towards life that one can have. Life has taught me many things, and one of those is to ignore such people.
How could one discuss a certain subject (especially tough ones such as religion) with a person who thinks that what they think is the ultimate truth? That would only be a waste of time.
Such people are like robots (not AI). They do not accept new information and this is what makes them vulnerable.

"Close-minded people would march off a cliff if doing so matched one of their preconceived notions."

That's terrible. The church has sealed your eyes, ears and mind tightly shut.
I don't see any good will become of that.