Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 405. (Read 901367 times)
as an atheist do not hate religion, but I dislike the religious preachers telling me I am living my life wrong, just because I do not believe in any gods
The church does lie, as it tells people xyz will happen when they die, and they tell it as fact.
It's okay to guess however, but the church doesn't tell it's listeners it's just wildly guessing, it's falsely presented as fact.
Nobody knows what happens when we die.
Nobody.
Anyone or anything that claims "they/it knows" is lying and should be ignored.
It's okay to guess however, but the church doesn't tell it's listeners it's just wildly guessing, it's falsely presented as fact.
Nobody knows what happens when we die.
Nobody.
Anyone or anything that claims "they/it knows" is lying and should be ignored.
But we could speculate. For example, is the state of non-being that preceded our birth (or the state before we became conscious) is the same state that might expect us after we cease to be? Is either of these states (or, rather, non-states) is somehow similar to a state of deep sleep, or any other state that involves complete unconsciousness, for that matter?
Do you believe every child has a basic human right to master basic critical reasoning skills prior to any religious/nationalist indoctrination? Or does every parent have a right to decide how their offspring interpret the world?
Do you consider such indoctrination [lying to young children about the world before they've properly developed the ability to reason] to be intellectual abuse that is every bit as ethically repugnant as physical abuse?
Do you consider such indoctrination [lying to young children about the world before they've properly developed the ability to reason] to be intellectual abuse that is every bit as ethically repugnant as physical abuse?
Nailed it.
Just because this doesn't leave visible evidence as physical abuse does, it doesn't mean that there is no abuse.
Most of the believers do not even realize this. If a christian (example) was born in a different region and had different guardians he would most likely have a different faith.
It can only be considered abuse if you're lying.
The church does lie, as it tells people xyz will happen when they die, and they tell it as fact.
It's okay to guess however, but the church doesn't tell it's listeners it's just wildly guessing, it's falsely presented as fact.
Nobody knows what happens when we die.
Nobody.
Anyone or anything that claims "they/it knows" is lying and should be ignored.
Do you believe every child has a basic human right to master basic critical reasoning skills prior to any religious/nationalist indoctrination? Or does every parent have a right to decide how their offspring interpret the world?
Do you consider such indoctrination [lying to young children about the world before they've properly developed the ability to reason] to be intellectual abuse that is every bit as ethically repugnant as physical abuse?
Do you consider such indoctrination [lying to young children about the world before they've properly developed the ability to reason] to be intellectual abuse that is every bit as ethically repugnant as physical abuse?
Nailed it.
Just because this doesn't leave visible evidence as physical abuse does, it doesn't mean that there is no abuse.
Most of the believers do not even realize this. If a christian (example) was born in a different region and had different guardians he would most likely have a different faith.
It can only be considered abuse if you're lying. What if your religion is the correct one and atheists are wrong? Then it would be a little abusive to just let the child ignore that until they're older, after they've picked up bad habits and a feeling of pride, instead of being humble. It's hard to be humble (and thank God for your blessings) if you've been brought up to take pride in your works and good circumstances because of yourself alone.
Proverbs 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.
James 4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
I support religious freedom. People should have the right to believe whatever they want as long as they don't shove it down other people's throat
Does this include the extremely impressionable minds of young children (formative years / age 2-12) by parents? Or do all parents have a natural right to "mold" their children as they see fit?Do you believe every child has a human right to master basic critical reasoning skills prior to any religious/nationalist indoctrination? Or does every parent have a right to decide how their offspring interpret the world?
Do you consider such indoctrination [lying to young children about the world before they've properly developed the ability to reason] to be intellectual abuse that is every bit as ethically repugnant as physical abuse?
How about atheist indoctrination which is happening to children today?
Is it? Really? Or are you just confusing it with children being correctly taught to question and make up their own minds. That's what I will teach mine anyway.
Nowadays (in civilized countries anyway) the church no longer has the power to drag people in the street and beat them to death for not joining it's cult. The church has lost power.
The power has been returned to the people to make up their own mind, which is why Atheism is more popular than it once was.
You sound more like an agnostic in some ways. Do you really think that God doesn't exist? Or do you simply think that there is no way of knowing whether or not God exists?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic
I think that God doesn't exist. Nobody has super powers or is immortal here and so there can't be a superior being that is able to decide about your life after death or that can control on what we do.
I support religious freedom. People should have the right to believe whatever they want as long as they don't shove it down other people's throat
Does this include the extremely impressionable minds of young children (formative years / age 2-12) by parents? Or do all parents have a natural right to "mold" their children as they see fit?Do you believe every child has a human right to master basic critical reasoning skills prior to any religious/nationalist indoctrination? Or does every parent have a right to decide how their offspring interpret the world?
Do you consider such indoctrination [lying to young children about the world before they've properly developed the ability to reason] to be intellectual abuse that is every bit as ethically repugnant as physical abuse?
How about atheist indoctrination which is happening to children today?
Do you believe every child has a basic human right to master basic critical reasoning skills prior to any religious/nationalist indoctrination? Or does every parent have a right to decide how their offspring interpret the world?
Do you consider such indoctrination [lying to young children about the world before they've properly developed the ability to reason] to be intellectual abuse that is every bit as ethically repugnant as physical abuse?
Do you consider such indoctrination [lying to young children about the world before they've properly developed the ability to reason] to be intellectual abuse that is every bit as ethically repugnant as physical abuse?
Nailed it.
Just because this doesn't leave visible evidence as physical abuse does, it doesn't mean that there is no abuse.
Most of the believers do not even realize this. If a christian (example) was born in a different region and had different guardians he would most likely have a different faith.
I dont hate Religion, I just feel its a complete misconception, Religion is mere control, Control to those who created it and used "God" as thier rod of fear or in religion where that control is not used for political and power gain, its merely a guideline to keep human beings "morally" correct.
Jesus said that if you don't forgive, you won't be forgiven
What is the actual word called for Jesus and it's meaning. According to Quran it is Isa(May peace be upon him). Isa has been highly respected and lovable in Islam and considered the one of the important prophet of Islam, from which language the word "Jesus" has prescribed. 
Do you believe every child has a basic human right to master basic critical reasoning skills prior to any religious/nationalist indoctrination? Or does every parent have a right to decide how their offspring interpret the world?
Do you consider such indoctrination [lying to young children about the world before they've properly developed the ability to reason] to be intellectual abuse that is every bit as ethically repugnant as physical abuse?
Do you consider such indoctrination [lying to young children about the world before they've properly developed the ability to reason] to be intellectual abuse that is every bit as ethically repugnant as physical abuse?
Nailed it.
I support religious freedom. People should have the right to believe whatever they want as long as they don't shove it down other people's throat
Does this include the extremely impressionable minds of young children (formative years / age 2-12) by parents? Or do all parents have a natural right to "mold" their children as they see fit?Do you believe every child has a human right to master basic critical reasoning skills prior to any religious/nationalist indoctrination? Or does every parent have a right to decide how their offspring interpret the world?
Do you consider such indoctrination [lying to young children about the world before they've properly developed the ability to reason] to be intellectual abuse that is every bit as ethically repugnant as physical abuse?
I support religious freedom. People should have the right to believe whatever they want as long as they don't shove it down other people's throat
You are talking about force-feeding, right? I hear that some prison personnel do that to prisoners who are protesting via a total fast for, sometimes, weeks.
I support religious freedom. People should have the right to believe whatever they want as long as they don't shove it down other people's throat
Atheists hate religion because most of them have an open mind. Religious people very often think that god will protect their life, will help them etc etc. I'm atheist after being religious. Right now I'm considering religion like a group of people that have an imaginary friend in common (God/Jesus).
You sound more like an agnostic in some ways. Do you really think that God doesn't exist? Or do you simply think that there is no way of knowing whether or not God exists?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic
Atheists hate religion because most of them have an open mind. Religious people very often think that god will protect their life, will help them etc etc. I'm atheist after being religious. Right now I'm considering religion like a group of people that have an imaginary friend in common (God/Jesus).
As I have said before, the simple atheist probably does not hate religion. But the atheist who practices his atheism, deeply, hates religion because he can see no way out of coming to the conclusion that atheism is a religion. And he doesn't like being wrong, same as any of us. Yet the deeper he gets into atheism, the "wronger" he recognizes that he is.
I think it's unfair to blame this on religion. I'm sure it played a part but there are plenty of evolutionary theories out there for why we happen to be a monogamous species which have nothing to do with religion.
Feynman's cargo cult is that way ----> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatgIt's perfectly fair to hold religion responsible for monogamy, and you need to read Sex at Dawn.
One model of reality that I'm thinking about goes like this:
There's a Turing machine and a Programmer.
The Turing machine doesn't know very much about rules or syntax. It just gets instructions from somewhere, which it runs automatically. There's no syntax-checking or filtering at that level. The machine occasionally gets stuck because of the Halting Problem, so this requires intervention from the Programmer to reset it. The Programmer might also have additional powers, such as being able to replicate itself, perhaps conjuring a higher self into existence as a workaround if it gets stuck resetting the machine in an infinite loop. Alternatively, it creates and delegates a lower self, but I guess that would be pretty similar.
The 'instructions' could be message data that we get from our senses in serialised form, presumably coming from another programmer entity, whom we don't have direct access to, but only via the message tape.
Rapid multiplication of the programmer selves could then pave the way for creating complex mental structures, out of something that had absolutely minimalistic rules. Far from being a nuisance, the undecidable parts of the software are what allow both sides (message and the messenger) to exist.
There's a Turing machine and a Programmer.
The Turing machine doesn't know very much about rules or syntax. It just gets instructions from somewhere, which it runs automatically. There's no syntax-checking or filtering at that level. The machine occasionally gets stuck because of the Halting Problem, so this requires intervention from the Programmer to reset it. The Programmer might also have additional powers, such as being able to replicate itself, perhaps conjuring a higher self into existence as a workaround if it gets stuck resetting the machine in an infinite loop. Alternatively, it creates and delegates a lower self, but I guess that would be pretty similar.
The 'instructions' could be message data that we get from our senses in serialised form, presumably coming from another programmer entity, whom we don't have direct access to, but only via the message tape.
Rapid multiplication of the programmer selves could then pave the way for creating complex mental structures, out of something that had absolutely minimalistic rules. Far from being a nuisance, the undecidable parts of the software are what allow both sides (message and the messenger) to exist.
When you suggest that perhaps "the syntax -- or language rules -- that I speak of are created experimentally," you have to remember that, given this possibility, there must still be an unconditional and unchanging structure at play, i.e. what defines a rule.
In his theory, Langan describes a "one-to-many" mapping of real/Universal syntax, which would allow for the simultaneous possibility of various conditional syntactic systems at the "many" level while maintaining an unchanging syntax archetype at the "one" level. The general structure of syntax or 'rule' still applies, but how this is expressed differs within the mapping.
When you talk about the Programmer creating a 'higher self,' basically you're talking about omnipotence. To create a 'higher self' would imply the creation of a self which is totally unbound by the syntax of the 'lower self,' but this is paradoxical to the fact that the 'lower self' must be unbound by the syntax of the 'higher self' in order to create it. If the Programmer can actually do this, then he was omnipotent all along, and any 'higher self' is simply one of a many diversified essence of the 'omnipotent self' [archetype].
That's why I called that entity a programmer rather than just a program. I don't know about omnipotence -- people sometimes seem eager to construct a straw man, talking about something being all-powerful but not clarifying what goes inside the "set of all powers". I'm just talking about a humble programmer whose known powers are only those that are exerted for the sake of maintaining separation from the machine.
Besides, what actual archetypes are we talking about? Not that I'm promoting a deistic world view, but an omnipotence archetype seems plausible. If it defies logic, then that's OK because it's omnipotent, it can do that sort of thing. Strangely enough, a few other candidates come to mind, which could make things really weird, like 'magic'. Magic tricks defy explanation, and if they can be explained, then they're not real magic. Magic in our minds could represent images of the ultimate 'Magic' archetype for things we don't understand. As we grow, we tend relabel everything as advanced technology and science. But it would be just be a trend, not a law of nature, and "there is no such thing as magic" is an unproven claim.
Only a minority of the atheists I've met truly hate religion. Instead, I've found that most are indifferent towards it. Atheists like O'Hair and Dawkins are probably in the minority.
Also, Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway have very high rates of irreligiosity. Only about 1 in 5 Swedes and 1 in 6 Norwegians profess a belief in god(s) but until 2000, Sweden had a state church and Norway still has one today.
I think it's unfair to blame this on religion. I'm sure it played a part but there are plenty of evolutionary theories out there for why we happen to be a monogamous species which have nothing to do with religion. One particular theory is that growing a big brain meant that offspring matured more slowly and therefore having the father stick around after mating gave the offspring a much greater survival advantage.
Also, Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway have very high rates of irreligiosity. Only about 1 in 5 Swedes and 1 in 6 Norwegians profess a belief in god(s) but until 2000, Sweden had a state church and Norway still has one today.
Another reason I hate religion is because believing in a fictitious paradise in an imaginary afterlife holds humanity back from realizing the paradise of sexual promiscuity that is possible here and now, on Earth. This revolution our youth are already beginning to embrace in every city, as year after year marriage loses popularity.
I think it's unfair to blame this on religion. I'm sure it played a part but there are plenty of evolutionary theories out there for why we happen to be a monogamous species which have nothing to do with religion. One particular theory is that growing a big brain meant that offspring matured more slowly and therefore having the father stick around after mating gave the offspring a much greater survival advantage.
Jump to: