Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 415. (Read 901367 times)

Sounds like lots of hate and anger you have bubbling away under the surface. Perhaps have a chat with God to cool off.
Oh.... Make sure you chat with the "correct" one, avoid the false man-made ones at all cost.

HAHAHAHAaaaaAAAaAAAA!!!

:standing-applause:

Bravo! That truly is *the* single most telling post you have made so far.



Let the hate flow through you . . .

:rolleyes: Sure, of course it was, totally devoid of thought, you know, what with the fact I pointed out how vapid an assertion it was, which it is but you still thought you'd get away with putting it in there.


No thanks, I'm still full from your earlier word-salad. This is just more artery-clogging baseless cheesiness.

Pro-tip: You know how theists totally like it when people make bold assertions which sound all very godly and serious and deep and mystical and spiritual and. . .shit . . .? Well theists might be able to get away with routinely pulling it out of their ass to the sound of much murmured approval from other theists, but we atheists tend to like our reality intellectually honest.

Even if there is a perverted God that rewards only those who do not believe in him and punishes the rest of the crowd, atheists would still ultimately be pathetic losers, since all their beliefs and dogmas would turn out to be false in the end...

Wtf, now I understand why they are so hateful, spiteful, and overall vicious deep inside

well I think it is the same reason as to why religious people hate athiests, they believe they are wrong. .;

Only God can answer that one.
We can only wildly speculate the better strategy.

As I said previously, this doesn't make the atheist strategy of non-believing losing less. Is it really so hard to understand? In fact, it doesn't even matter, since the question is why atheists hate religion, but not which God is statistically more authentic...

Fallacy here, false dilemma. There are other outcomes, such as the repercussions of discovering you foolishly believed in a false God all along, instead of the real one as explained a few pages back.

That was sarcasm, I knew that you would catch at this with a knee-jerk reflex, totally devoid of thought. On a more serious note though, hate is often a flip side of envy, envy which cannot be gotten rid of by reason or faith. The latter atheists apparently lack, so you guess...

Yeah, sure thing, you go right ahead and pretend reality is how you declare it to be and that your attempt to claim theism as the 'optimum' choice in life, otherwise known as Pascal's Wager, wasn't shown by objective reasoning to be the flawed fallacy it clearly was.


Hahahahaaa! Nice! You're just doing the same dumb thing and asserting something without evidence or reason.

You are declaring that atheists hate religion because theists look down on them? ROFL! Not only do you claim such, but you also threw in another arbitrary declaration, namely, that atheists envy theists?

Do you even logic?

What grounds do you declare atheists to be envious of theists?

As for the majority>minority of theists and atheists, you are completely failing to account for the fact that atheist put no value whatsoever in theist fairy tales and certainly not in theist opinion derived from these fairy tales, so why would we care that theists are known to consider themselves as superior to atheists when we know damn well it is a delusional state of mind they are living in?

We hate religion because it poisons everything. Everything. No need to dream up convoluted ideas where you try to crowbar some kind of absurdity about how we supposedly envy theists for their faulty thinking simply because there's so fucking many of them.

I see you are still desperately trying to catch at any opportunity to switch focus from the essence of Pascal's Wager to insignificant details. To end this meaningless debate I rephrase my initial post as following:


Atheists hate religion since in most religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc) God cares whether people believe in him or not, and rewards believers (Hebrews 11:6 - "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him"), at the same time inexorably punishing those who do not believe (Romans 1: 18 - "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people"). Therefore, in the eyes of the followers of these religions (majority), atheists (minority) appear to be total losers, since if their God exists, the believers will be rewarded, if he doesn't, they lose nothing, which instigates hate and envy from the atheists (since the latter psychologically can't ignore the opinion of the majority, whether they like it or not)...

Haters gonna hate

You don't get to dismiss the fact that "if there is God, he wouldn't care much . . ." is *absolutely* stating a claim towards knowing WhatGodWants(tm). "he wouldn't care much . . ." - What else is that if it isn't you specifying a characteristic of your god?

- Again, you are asserting something you cannot possibly define. You are still claiming that a god that seeks worship will accept the worship of any god, but for you to claim such you would have to base your reasoning on particular scripture, entirely ignoring the fact that numerous religious texts are very clear on the dire need to *only* worship their specific god with their proscribed characteristics.

If you aren't citing scripture in order to assert WhatGodWants(tm) then you are simply pulling this claim out of your ass, which makes it equally arbitrary and fallacious because one can just as easily define a 'caring' god as one which cares only that those worshiping it are 'good' people as you can claim his 'caring' be only measured by requiring that people worship 'Him' through the worship of any god, even those whose claimed values are in direct conflict with each other. It is nonsensical.

Do you see, you can't claim to only be citing the logic of Pascal's Wager being based on a god who cares about being worshiped if you are also claiming *anything* more about that state of 'caring'. So the *only* additional 'data' (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense) claimed towards WhatGodWants(tm) in terms of expanding on the definition of what 'He' cares for, is that written in multiple 'Holy' texts and, as explained, much of it is in direct conflict with each other, which means that if a god can't be bothered to communicate clearly and unambiguously as to what he requires of us then he probably doesn't care about being worshiped and if you want to claim he *has* communicated such then you are back to citing conflicting scripture or arbitrary opinion, both of which are meaningless when seeking to construct a cohesive platform to build your argument on.


Yeah, funny how people who have their assertion exposed for the fallacious reasoning it is frequently cite how tired they are of those who successfully argue against their position.

There are no sides to take. Indifferent god is equal to no god. And nothing changes in the end. In fact, it wouldn't be a god at all in the way it is meant in Pascal's Wager

Even so, it doesn't make it better, because there are a lot of gods that do care if people believe in them or not, the best bet continues to be not taking sides.

That was the only condition that I put forward further, that God does indeed care whether people believe in him or not (in positive sense). If he does, then not believing at all is an unreservedly losing strategy (all other things unknown). Even if it turns out in the end that you believed in the wrong God (which you don't know a priori)...

Strictly speaking, an indifferent supreme deity shouldn't be called God in the first place, but even in this case believing is still an optimal strategy (since you lose nothing believing). Nothing essentially changes

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it only takes into account one particular version of god, it is a False Dichotomy fallacy, a god may exist and he can not care if one believes in it for example.

The possibilities for the existence of gods are pretty much endless, if you want to make a wager based on that, the less riskier bet is to not take sides, if the true god ends up to be the Korubo's god at least when you meet it you can say you have taken no sides, if that particular god cares about that....

Not too sure I agree with this optimal strategy thing.
Advantages of Atheism.

1) Don't have to live in fear of displeasing their god everyday, because they don't have one.
2) Avoiding the very high probability risk of accidently worshipping a false god.
3) No danger of accidently worshipping the devil disguised as god.
4) Got their Sundays free to do as they like.
5) More money in their pocket as the church hasn't squeezed it out of them.
6) Is amusing because religious people get annoyed others don't want to subscribe to "their special god club".

I expect there are many more if anybody wants to add.

If atheists hate organized religion, it's because they blame religion for many of the problems that exist in life.

If atheists hate religion in general, it's because their atheism is their attempt to get away from religion, but they can't, because atheism IS a religion.

There are many common law wins and defeats (obviously, if somebody wins, somebody else loses). Many small claims court "trials" are common law, because they are person to person. If a Judge makes the decision, then his decision is based on the evidences and facts that the people bring in their claims at the Small "CLAIMS" Court.

Wake up and see that the position of government official can't do anything without a man holding that position, or subordinate positions. Thus, if the government official position harms or injures you, it wasn't the position (governmental office) that harmed or injured you. It was the man who did it.

Now this guy who harmed you, does he put his pants on right leg or left leg first? That is, is he a man or a god? And if he is a god, you are a god just as much as he, because you have the right to put your pants on any way you want.

If the guy harms you, and if you don't deserve the harm he did to you, and especially if he does that harm in ways that his governmental position says he is not supposed to do, then honorably sue the biggest bucks out of him as you can.

Oh, sorry. I don't keep in mind what you write (well, mostly) since you are evidently busy trying to confuse matters instead of clearing them up. I mean all those references to scriptures and things like that (which are not relevant)


Since we are all humans, therefore possess the same basic qualities (senses). But in the end it doesn't matter, since otherwise you should also consider non-faith as being of different colors and shapes. By faith here I mean belief in being held responsible before some deity for one's actions and deeds during one's life


I don't ascribe anything, it is no more than your wishful thinking. The only thing I actually said (and meant) in this aspect is that for Pascal's Wager to hold (make sense), God should care whether people believe in him or not (by whatever name). All other characteristics are ultimately irrelevant since they distort the essence of the dilemma in every way possible, AND are rendered void by the fact that atheists don't believe in any God at all. It doesn't matter in which God you believe (good or bad), since the opposite is the absence of believing altogether. Thus it all boils down to faith against the absence of faith. And for caring God you'd better have one...

In fact, I already got tired of your demagogy