Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 403. (Read 901341 times)

According  to Silas (member of yahoo answers)

Most of the atheists that I have heard or seen think that people that believe in any religion (Christianity for the most part) are idiots, bad people, or crazy. Now I'm sure there are atheists that don't think this way but I haven't seen or heard from one that doesn't. I am a Christian but have no problem with people who are gay,atheist, or from a different religion. From what I've experienced atheists think that religion is a social issue and believe that religion is the cause of war,violence, and such. When most religions are against such things. I just want to know why atheists have to think this way and why cant all people just live to respect each other and why atheists believe that the sooner religion is gone the better.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090327202028AAkUAN3

That's just the delusion. I've seen unicorns on a mountain far far away, but nobody is going to believe that story. How does this sound to you? I've also experienced and seen things while meditating that I can't even properly describe.

Should I tell everyone that "god" has contacted me and that I'm going to be your next savior? Just because you feel or see something that you can't describe you can't say that it is "god" since you don't know.

Even if it is semantics, I think there's an important point that many people seem to overlook: different understanding of the words, leading to greater misunderstandings about what they're disagreeing about.

For instance, faith sounds like a synonym for trust. (Not that that helps because 'trust' would be another word that some people have completely burnt out of their system.)

Faith: a submissive act of acknowledging or sensing vulnerability about a greater power in our lives.
Knowledge: a comforting sense of certainty, familiarity, or empowerment, provided by some kind of recognition (e.g.: new evidence is in agreement with existing dogmas.)

A couple of others:
Trust: "to trust someone", e.g.: having faith that a person will be friendly in spite of a lack of evidence.
Certainty, Confidence: labels to acknowledge and describe the "thing" that is the sense of conviction of knowing. Certainty and confidence would refer to the same type of thing, but they differ in the degree in which they describe it.

--------------
Edit:
Incidentally, these definitions have far-reaching implications, as it sort-of turns the tables in the religious debate.
Modern agnostics would be old-school "faithful" by acknowledging there are some things they just don't know, whereas the religious crowd would be heretical due to their moral crime of overconfidence.

Actually I've just found an awesome J&M which references a reddit post describing perfectly what religious belief is driven by:

Not at all, they'll understand completely how you have been conditioned to apply special pleading to your beliefs so they are not held up to the same standard of analysis as anything we actually need to define objective proof for in order to gather information and form knowledge and understanding. That you employ compartmentalisation to protect your beliefs and use confirmation bias to cherry-pick explanations of reality that suit you, rather than intellectual honesty and integrity.

This is not an insult, this is a fact of the process of theist 'belief'.

You want to make hand-wavy declarations concerning things you've 'experienced' which defy explanation, therefore God. When the truth is they don't defy explanation at all because if there was even one thing, just one, which could objectively demonstrate the existence of the Paranormal, it would be global news and science would accede to this new, now proven theory which required incorporation into our understanding of The Universe.

There is, however, a shedload of evidence and reasoning which explains why you and your ilk believe what you do and are prone to interpreting things the way you do.

So which is more likely, rational and objectively-reasoned explanations which are derived from multiple sources of study and critical analysis, or that you actually experienced something for which there is no other answer than, ". . .therefore God."?

I don't have doubt that God exists though, never did.

But who cares about me? Obviously that's pretty rare and I would never suggest that most people are that way. I just don't like it when people give 100% to something that's not.

That's the trick, isn't it? When you look at 100% of your faith, it is 100%. When you look at 100% of your doubt, it also is 100%. When you look at yourself, you see that you have both faith and doubt.

Yes, pure faith is certainty, it is not proof.

As I have a certainty that God exists, I can not prove it to someone else.

I find it hard to say no one has 100% faith, when I've never not believed in God existing... does that mean I don't exist?

If no faith = doubt, or uncrtainty (e.g. I don't have faith in the Cubs)...

Then pure faith = lack of doubt, or certainty

To what degree this is just semantics, I don't know.

Extremely rare event going on here, I actually agree with BADecker on his never 100% point.
Surely if faith was at 100% then it would no longer be faith, it would be proof? Maybe I'm wrong on this.

I don't have zero evidence aside from an old book. I've seen and felt things that give me evidence that it's true. The problem with me saying that to anyone who doesn't believe, is they'll just think I'm crazy. There's as much solid evidence for me to believe in Christianity as science can get to explain the world. I've seen examples in the real world that play out with the hypothesis that Christianity is true. It's already been discussed here, that everything in the scientific field is limited by our perceptions of the world and our perceptions of the results of scientific testing. Also Christianity explains things science cannot, IMHO.



What I said should not be considered the No True Scotsman fallacy. Because I was arguing that not all regions are deadly and toxic, I was arguing SOME are not when you were saying all were. It's still true that some are not.

I believe in the bible (I've read the whole thing except psalms which I'm working on now). I'm sure if you brought up examples for contradictions, I could clearly explain them all, but here's a little verse about why I won't:

Matthew 7:6 “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces." I'm sure you'll say that's because I couldn't. But I know there is no changing some people's minds. I'm not going to waste my time, when there are better things to do than talk to a wall (closed mind).

I'm glad you don't need someone to tell you not to murder people, but I never said you did...


I wouldn't say that. I have always had faith in God, 100%. I did one time, really, truly think about what if there wasn't a God, but my faith was never shaken. Some people do get the spiritual gift of faith.

1 Corinthians 12:8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit

Potatoes:



Potahtoes:


Would you make up your mind already?

Wow! Sounds like the masses of science theory.


A true Christian recognizes the fact that his faith in God isn't 100%, just as his knowledge about God isn't. This is part of what Christianity is about... salvation from God by God holding the Christian's faith strong enough so that the Christian is saved.

No "contradictions and inaccuracies." Only misunderstandings, lack of faith, and lies by those who would war against God.



Yet it is the Invisible, Omnipotent "Sky-Daddy" Who wrote His laws on your heart at the time of your conception, just as He placed His laws in the hearts of all people. The fact that you are unwilling to obey the law on your heart that says that He exists, shows that you would willingly disobey the law against murder if you felt that you wanted to today.

Just highlighting these two gems of wisdom that appeared in the same post, because they were made unironically and without intent to entertain.

Theism by its very nature is psychologically toxic because you absolutely have to maintain a state of intellectual dishonesty in order to 'believe', to have your 'faith', which causes cognitive dissonance when the part of your brain which is capable of objective reasoning is exposed to information which serves to highlight the constant conflicts in what you believe and what is evidenced .

Just because you declare yourself be a "True Christian" (try looking up the No True Scotsman fallacy), who believes in only the 'good' stuff from your Holy Book, it doesn't change the fact that your Holy Book is riddle with contradictions and inaccuracies which you have to tread carefully through in order to ignore it lest it exposes your cherished beliefs to be the fallacies they are.

I don't need an invisible ominpotent sky-daddy to tell me not to murder people, I have no inclination to murder people and I tend to live by the basis of objective secular morality, that which values the autonomy of consent whereby I cannot reasonably expect my consent to be honoured if I do not value the informed consent of others.

You talk so goofy.

We don't know where this universe comes from. Close to 100 percent of things like Big Bang theory and Evolution theory are science fiction. We don't know it is fact at all. We might hope, but we don't know.

This puts us back onto even ground. We see the universe and everything around us. But we have no clue just from looking at it where it comes from. Ideas, yes. But no real clue.

This makes science to be on an even keel with religion, BUT ONLY IF YOU DON'T EXAMINE THEM BOTH THOROUGHLY. If you examine science and Bible religion thoroughly, you find that Bible religion is much more plausible that science religion regarding where we and the universe come from. Why? Because it logically explains much more about everything than real, factual science even starts to explain.



EDIT: This is why those atheists who hate religion hate it. They keep butting their heads against the brick wall of reality, that there is far less reality in the things that they believe than the things that the theists believe.

It should be considered a lie. Since you have zero evidence aside from an old book, and since you don't know anything you can't say it is true. Unless there is solid evidence that the religion is nothing but the truth, it should be considered abuse.
You're filling my naive head with nonsense when I'm young. Rather teach me something real, like science.

Please tell me how the church didn't insist on the geocentric system. 

FTFY.

As a Christian who believes in Thou Shalt Not Murder, and not judging others lest I be judged, I would never go up to someone and say you have to change your faith or murder. Some people people are like that, but you can't say all religious people are deadly and toxic, that just isn't true.

It is natural for people to hope for something. I guess that would be equal to believing in something, i.e. taking something as granted without second thought. Not believing requires an expenditure of mental effort which would make life unbearable and miserable if practiced in earnest, i.e. making it into a lifetime credo...

But that would still be founded on a belief of sorts

Religion means believing in GOD,making hope "one day we will get free from such disaster situation".atheists are necessarily irreligious, but that’s not true they think different they don't need hope ,they just want to live their life they haven't tried faith on god OR tried but lose soon. .
Some atheists are part of a religion because some religions don’t require theism. Examples of this include Ethical Culture, Religious Humanism, Humanistic Judaism.