Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 404. (Read 901367 times)

Atheists haven't tried faith? I think you'll find most adult atheists were raised theists as children by their, equally conditioned to 'believe', theist parents.

Atheism isn't simply an arbitrary rejection, it is an intellectually honest position.

Most adult atheists today have got to that stage after having spent a considerable amount of their lives trying to make sense of the theist world-view and ultimately reaching the correct conclusion that theism, in that it requires intellectual dishonesty to be maintained, isn't actually knowledge of anything but is instead the process of giving yourself up to arbitrarily declared dogma derived from a time in our species when we weren't able to understand much of anything.

Shit, all you have to do is look at Scientology to see how, even today, people are often incapable of even the most basic reasoning skills and will latch on to truly outrageous and absurd claims being made by organisations and people who claim to have the answers to the questions of life for them.

That is because they have been raised to believe that someone, somewhere, has the answers they need. The truth is we all are perfectly capable of reaching the most intellectually honest conclusions about life, The Universe and Everything, without resorting to "therefore God . . ."

That what theists absolutely hate about atheism - because it doesn't say, "trust us, we're telling you the truth" like theism does, no, it actually says, "trust yourself, you can figure out the truth".

Theists are far more likely to get on with people of other faith because they're all part of the same game of playing-pretend *real* hard and us atheists are like the grown-ups who are spoiling their fun. Trouble is their 'fun' is deadly and toxic.

Religion means believing in GOD,making hope "one day we will get free from such disaster situation".But Atheists 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. .

dont forget communism connected to religion a vey hatefull thing to not just hitler

Try again, hot shot.

Stopped reading here. You're embarrassing yourself. Just stop.

Science is predicated upon Empiricism, which is merely a theory of knowledge acquisition, i.e. that all we can possibly know is known through observational experience.  

Sounds lovely, but unfortunately this is a purely philosophical assumption and is empirically unfalsifiable.  In other words, Science doesn't even have the capacity to explore and conclude upon its own assumptions.  However, Philosophy does, and this very assumption was logically falsified thousands of years ago.  The only reason Science works is because it defers to Philosophy and an understanding of the limits of inductive reasoning in order to control for observer participation, i.e. it gains the ability to dismiss any effect an observer may have upon that which he observes, but must concede comprehensive explanation as part of the bargain.

In other words, yes, there is a better standard.  It's called logic.

Because they say god said this and god said that when god said fuck all    logic plain and simple logic

It is commonly understood that the word "objective" in scientific terms translates roughly to "as objective as we can get in this life". Since no better standard is available to us, it makes sense to work with what we've got and not get too fussed about it.

Human Civilization will trod along slowly toward omniscience either way. And religion will die a slow death either way.

The archetype I'm talking about would be, in your scenario, isomorphic to the Programmer himself.  Omnipotence corresponds to total, unbound freedom relative to something.  The humble programmer, who could omnipotently introduce the creation of a 'higher self' to "maintain separation from the machine" introduces an omnipotence paradox within the systemic relationship between himself and the machine that can only be resolved at a higher level, and in the same way that metalanguages can be used to resolve paradoxes at an object-oriented level.  An omnipotence 'archetype' can thus be modeled as an algebraic construct that distributes to all systems in which such paradoxes necessarily arise, and that has the absolute capacity to resolve them.

Because a comprehensive explanation capable of resolving these paradoxes once-and-for-all would seem to introduce its own paradox (i.e. the algebraic construct itself is introduced as separate from its negation, and the two can never be rationally synthesized from within a rational argumentative context which could be modeled as an object-oriented system), we must conclude, for the sake of consistency, that the archetype itself is an absolute limit of explanation.  Any attempt to deny this limit would only serve to reinforce it, as the denial itself would necessarily assume the distributive characteristics of the archetype.

Logic soundly shows us that that which is "objective" is fundamentally inseparable from the abstract theories/models we create about it.  In other words, it's ultimately not true that we can't really know anything.  Consider, for example, that even calling something "objective" is itself an abstract theory of what constitutes objective.

Fixed that for you. To be fair, plenty of despicable things have been done in the name of science, too. Think lab animals, and human experimentation torture. There are other, better arguments for abandoning religion.
 

whoa.

mind=blown. never thought about it like that, but it's sort of true -- how the hell can we really "know" anything, if our senses are not truly objective? interesting take. is that really what nihilism is?

the funny thing is that logically, we shouldn't believe anything. the entire scope of human knowledge is tainted by subjective human perception -- meaning that we cannot obtain truth. we can only obtain what we perceive to be true. there can be no objective knowledge.

the answer? nihilism, of course.

Religion is not for everybody, why We know the difference between right and wrong. We don't need the fear of eternal, painful hell etc

Yeah makes sense to think about before we was born as well. Is it the same state as after our death? No idea.

And my take on this is that these states are actually the same state of just being unconscious. You could argue that being unconscious for a few hours is not quite the same as being unconscious for eternity, but then I will argue back that there is no such thing as subjectively experienced (or, strictly speaking, non-experienced) eternity at all. My argument is that whenever you insist on future eternal unconsciousness (for example), you should deal with the past "eternal" unconsciousness as well...

We simply don't believe anything that is not logical.

Yeah we can speculate, that's all we can do. I guess everyone has done that, maybe even animals do?

the things that human beings have done in the names of their religions. They are not admirable, they have often been utterly despicable