Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 418.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Alphi on May 29, 2015, 01:29:45 PM

Quote from: Lauda on May 29, 2015, 12:37:58 PM

I'm talking about the people that complained about Gavin, the fork and whatnot. Although let's not go that far off topic.

I've been watching so many altcoins I guess I haven't been paying enough attention to Bitcoin lately.
who was trying to crucify Gavin? he seems like a pretty nice guy I wonder if he is Christian or atheist lol

as far as I am concerned it wouldn't bother me at all if Gavin or even Satoshi were any religion or none.
I tend to judge people based upon their actions, not on the kinds of books they read (or games they play).

I think the internet just attracts weird people in general. I wouldn't put too much stock in the things people say when they are online.. more often than not they say things that they would never dare to say to a persons face.

Quote from: Falconer on May 29, 2015, 01:22:47 PM

You can distinguish who the ordinary religion people and who fanatics are. If you are too fanatic about something like religion or nationalism ,then you are bad. I have no problem about what you said about religion, and good luck with your logical mind.

I agree with you.. people can be fanatical about anything... even if you take away all the gods, people will still find something to worship and fight over.
what were those 170 bikers fighting over in texas? .. was it a parking space? lol

Come ooooonnn, man. The bikers weren't fighting each other. And the bikers in the biker gangs weren't killed by each other. They were killed by the government gang.

Alphi

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Lauda on May 29, 2015, 12:37:58 PM

I'm talking about the people that complained about Gavin, the fork and whatnot. Although let's not go that far off topic.

I've been watching so many altcoins I guess I haven't been paying enough attention to Bitcoin lately.
who was trying to crucify Gavin? he seems like a pretty nice guy I wonder if he is Christian or atheist lol

as far as I am concerned it wouldn't bother me at all if Gavin or even Satoshi were any religion or none.
I tend to judge people based upon their actions, not on the kinds of books they read (or games they play).

I think the internet just attracts weird people in general. I wouldn't put too much stock in the things people say when they are online.. more often than not they say things that they would never dare to say to a persons face.

Quote from: Falconer on May 29, 2015, 01:22:47 PM

You can distinguish who the ordinary religion people and who fanatics are. If you are too fanatic about something like religion or nationalism ,then you are bad. I have no problem about what you said about religion, and good luck with your logical mind.

I agree with you.. people can be fanatical about anything... even if you take away all the gods, people will still find something to worship and fight over.
what were those 170 bikers fighting over in texas? .. was it a parking space? lol

Falconer

legendary

Activity: 2660

Merit: 1141

Quote from: Alphi on May 29, 2015, 11:01:52 AM

Yes they used to be burned at the stake for saying god doesn't exist... and they still get death threats from religious fanatics today.

Quote from: Lauda on May 29, 2015, 12:37:58 PM

They have done so much wrong to atheists, while atheists did almost nothing. It's not like I'm trying to get anyone burned because of them believing in fairy tales. We usually just use reason and logic to talk sense into them (usually without success).

You can distinguish who the ordinary religion people and who fanatics are. If you are too fanatic about something like religion or nationalism ,then you are bad. I have no problem about what you said about religion, and good luck with your logical mind.

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: Lauda on May 29, 2015, 09:56:08 AM

Quote from: Falconer on May 29, 2015, 07:30:21 AM

But is religious people who did badness same with atheists? They have religion but don't care about heaven and hell so they did everything what they want. And I didn't say atheists is good and religious person is bad.

You're asking me if both religious people and atheists sins would be considered equal if they did the same ones? That's a yes.
The good deeds would decide who's better and who's worse.

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on May 29, 2015, 07:49:53 AM

You know I've never thought of that before. They want to get into heaven, so they help others but the main reason for helping is to selfishly help themselves, which is bad, so they don't goto heaven after all.

I'm going to remember that one.

My brain sometimes comes up with all possible outcomes. I'm not saying that everyone is doing this, but I'm pretty sure that quite a good portion of them are. If I recall correctly when you go to a priest to confess your sins (I have no idea how this is called?), he sometimes tells you to do a good deed to someone. This is where our man made religious have flaws. The person will do something good because if they don't do it their confession would be invalid. Selfish? I would say so.

I am by no means defending religion, but it would be fair to say that nobody acts unselfishly. Take for instance an athiest who donates money to charity. He is not doing so for religious reasons, so you cannot say he is only seeking to make god happy so he can have rewards in the afterlife, because the athiest doesn't believe in that. So you might say his actions have to be selfless. But I don't believe they are. Why would an athiest donate to charity? Because it makes him feel good or because it lets him believe he is helping people who very much need it, and this makes him feel good or lets him believe he is a good person. Yes, his actions are good and they help people who are not him, but I would still tell you that the primary motivation to his actions are about himself, which is selfish. They are about himself before they are about anybody else. This does not make his actions bad, of course. Selfish actions can be good actions; it's not a mutually exclusive situation. So whether you are religious or not, all your actions are selfish if we're being honest about it, and that's ok! But athiests don't get to claim the moral high ground because religious folks only act to for the promise of eternal rewards, which makes them selfish. Athiests act selfishly too, the rewards for them are just different.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Alphi on May 29, 2015, 11:01:52 AM

Quote from: Falconer on May 29, 2015, 10:54:44 AM

It's okay. But me, as a religion man state that sometimes I was amazed to atheists. But why atheists hate religion people so much? Have atheists ever been disturbed by religions so that made a disputation between us?

Yes they used to be burned at the stake for saying god doesn't exist... and they still get death threats from religious fanatics today.

They have done so much wrong to atheists, while atheists did almost nothing. It's not like I'm trying to get anyone burned because of them believing in fairy tales. We usually just use reason and logic to talk sense into them (usually without success).

Quote from: Alphi on May 29, 2015, 10:59:07 AM

-snip-
If life was a computer game then Athiests would be playing RogueLikes and happy religious people would be playing super mario or rainbow islands LOL

I think Jesus would have liked Bitcoin.. after all he was the one who went into the temple and smashed up the tables of the money lenders.
If he was around today he would probably do the same thing to JP Morgan and Western union. I dont speak for Jesus, Muhammad or Gautama (buddha) but its very clear from their teachings and actions that all 3 of them did not like the practice of usury and exploiting people for profit.
-snip-

Yeah I though so. I am familiar with almost all genres, but not sub genres. Those aren't major titles, that's probably the reason why I haven't heard of the exact sub genre.
That's quite a great analogy that you've made there. Actually it is one of the best things that I've read on the forums lately. Cheesy

Well even though you might be right I'm not talking about this "jesus" guy. I'm talking about the people that complained about Gavin, the fork and whatnot. Although let's not go that far off topic.

Beliathon

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU

Quote from: Vod on May 29, 2015, 03:31:57 AM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on May 28, 2015, 10:27:45 AM

Of course, neither you or anybody else can prove that there isn't consciousness without the brain. So where is your evidence that there isn't thinking without the brain?

400 years of dark ages because of idiots like this.

No, 400 years of dark ages because of idiots like that given power and their ignorant violence tolerated four hundred years. Anyway the dark age continues to the present, we are a civilization still governed primarily by violence.

Quote from: BADecker on May 29, 2015, 01:12:49 AM

Wrong!

We know that the speed of light isn't a constant right now. We know that it is faster sometimes and slower at other times. We know that gravitation affects the speed of light. We also know that other constants aren't always quite the same. In addition, not all scientists believe that Planck's Constant is a constant. Google "variations in Planck's Constant." Keeping this in mind, nobody knows if any of the constants were anywhere near what they are now, say, in the time that we call 10,000 years ago.

Everyone has heard of absolute zero. Few people have heard of "absolute hot." Planck calculated absolute hot. Other scientists calculate figures for absolute hot that are extremely different than Planck's.

We don't really know for a fact that our guesses for the distance away of the far galaxies, or the age of the universe, are even close to reality. And this is common knowledge among scientists and astronomers, though they don't like to look at it or think about it.

Then we have you, proclaiming the guesses as fact.

Wink

I have this habit of looking for a smiley or other emoticon at the end of a post. When I see an emoticon, I generally don't read the post, and disregard the author as a borderline retard of some sort.

However, like a good scientist, every so often I test my hypothesis and take the time to read one of these posts. I did so with your post quoted above, and see that my hypothesis holds true.

Quote from: BADecker on May 29, 2015, 10:25:27 AM

Imagine that, Fluffer. God is working as hard as He can with you, just so you will go to Heaven.

Heaven and hell are both places on Earth. I was just in heaven about six minutes ago, it was a good orgasm. How did you manage to grow old enough to read and write yet still be such a noob at life?

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: jaysabi on May 29, 2015, 11:27:39 AM

Quote from: BADecker on May 29, 2015, 01:12:49 AM

Quote from: Beliathon on May 28, 2015, 10:59:23 PM

Quote from: zeeshsnrehman2 on May 27, 2015, 10:39:20 PM

Quote from: Beliathon on May 27, 2015, 07:40:58 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on May 27, 2015, 04:35:20 PM

but i would like to ask to an atheist what happens after death?

Lots of things, but none of them will involve you. The universe keeps spinning totally indifferent to your existence, as if you never existed at all.

The universe won't care, and you won't care either. Only your loved ones will be affected.

what happens to YOU. not the universe because thats obvious

You cease to exist, and slowly rot away to dust. I know this comes as a shock for you, but that's obvious too.

Quote from: BADecker on May 28, 2015, 10:39:02 AM

Well, first off, nobody knows that there were billions of years...

You are aware that when you look into a telescope you are essentially looking back in time? The light from the stars takes tens or hundreds of thousands of years to reach us.

The Hubble Telescope allows us to look back in time an incredible distance. Check out what happens when the Hubble points its camera at a seemingly empty "black" area of space for four months straight. We can see 13 billion year old starlight.

In 2015 the age of the universe is not at all up for debate, it is a scientific fact that our universe is at minumum thirteen billion years old. Fun fact, when you look at the sun you are looking back in time about eleven minutes, or said another way you are viewing the light that left the sun eleven light minutes ago.

Wrong!

We know that the speed of light isn't a constant right now. We know that it is faster sometimes and slower at other times. We know that gravitation affects the speed of light. We also know that other constants aren't always quite the same. In addition, not all scientists believe that Planck's Constant is a constant. Google "variations in Planck's Constant." Keeping this in mind, nobody knows if any of the constants were anywhere near what they are now, say, in the time that we call 10,000 years ago.

Everyone has heard of absolute zero. Few people have heard of "absolute hot." Planck calculated absolute hot. Other scientists calculate figures for absolute hot that are extremely different than Planck's.

We don't really know for a fact that our guesses for the distance away of the far galaxies, or the age of the universe, are even close to reality. And this is common knowledge among scientists and astronomers, though they don't like to look at it or think about it.

Then we have you, proclaiming the guesses as fact.

The speed of light is constant in a vaccuum. The only time it varies is in different mediums (through glass, through water, etc.). Gravity wells affects space-time, so it can affect the direction of light, but not the speed of light, which is always constant. You again are claiming your ignorance as an asset. You cannot disclaim facts by throwing bad logic at it.

At the risk of posting a source completely over your head and which you'll find some way to dismiss illogically anyway: http://www.quora.com/Does-gravity-affect-the-speed-of-light

He's also ignoring the fact that light's velocity remains relatively (i.e. relationally) constant despite one's own changes in velocity.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: jaysabi on May 28, 2015, 08:24:17 PM

Quote from: the joint on May 28, 2015, 05:10:52 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on May 28, 2015, 03:40:15 PM

Quote from: the joint on May 28, 2015, 12:51:15 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on May 28, 2015, 12:16:20 PM

Quote from: the joint on May 28, 2015, 11:46:19 AM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on May 28, 2015, 11:17:41 AM

Quote from: BADecker on May 28, 2015, 10:39:02 AM

The universe didn't exist for anyone before they were born. Therefore the universe doesn't exist except for the lifetime of people. The suggestion that the universe exists more than your lifetime is all a made up story that you might have heard about before you were born, but that you have apparently forgotten about since.

Cheesy

Well I glad we cleanly sorted that one out.

WTF am I reading? It doesn't even make any sense. Just some random words bashed together.

Shockingly, I understood this, but it's still inaccurate. Of course he doesn't realize it, but this is close to an Occam's Razor-type inference based upon all available, pragmatic evidence acquired throughout our life. It's a perfectly valid conclusion that we can't possibly know whether the Universe does or does not exist in the absence of our experience of it, or some aspect of it.

His mistake is making a definitive conclusion. He is claiming he knows the Universe doesn't exist in the absence of our experience of it, rather than claiming we can't know, which would be empirically correct. There is no theoretical way to empirically validate or invalidate the existence of the Universe in the absence of our experience of it.

Way over my head.
One question. If the universe didn't exist before I was born, how did my parents exist to create me?

Evidence suggests that your parents existed to create you, because you see that other children are created from their parents. If you are a father, you would have witnessed this first hand with the birth of your child(ren).

Here's an analogy I've used previously:

Imagine I bop you on the head and you're knocked unconscious. While you are in that unconscious state, does the Universe continue to exist?

Suppose you become conscious again, and you seek to answer that very question. How would you arrive at a conclusion? One thing you might try is to ask me, the person who bopped you on the head. I could tell you, "Sure, the Universe continued to exist, because I bopped you on the head, saw you fall unconscious, and was with you the whole time until you woke up." Sounds pretty legit, but, how do you know I'm telling the truth? You must now introduce an assumption that I am truthful.

Suppose you tried a different approach. Suppose you had set up a video camera that was recording you at the time I bopped you on the head, and it was set to record continuously until you woke up. After waking up, you then check the recording and you see the entire sequence unfold on tape -- i.e. the recording shows me bopping you on the head, shows you falling unconscious, and shows you to be continually unconscious until you wake up. This, too, sounds pretty legit, but how do you know the recording you're watching isn't the result of some kind of video trickery? Here, too, you must introduce an assumption that no alterations were made to the recording after you woke up.

Occam's Razor only works with empirical data. It advises that the best conclusion is that which accounts for all of the data but introduces the fewest assumptions. Because defining the state of the Universe in the absence of our experience requires introducing assumptions about it, we can simply remove these assumptions and come up with a more sound answer, i.e. we simply don't know what the state of the Universe is like when we don't experience it. It may not be a practical way to think in all cases, but I believe its hard to argue with the fact that in 100% of cases where the Universe has been affirmed to exist, experience of the Universe was present. And, there have been exactly 0 cases where the Universe has been affirmed to exist in the absence of the experience of it.

I understand what you're saying, and yet the thought experiment has almost zero utility outside philosophy. Maybe thousands of people suffering and dying every day is just a really realistic simulation to fool me into believing reality is real. Or maybe philosophers have too much luxury to wonder if others' suffering is just a deception.

The philosophical practice of denying things we know to be true doesn't strike me as having a high utility. Logically necessary, but in academia only?

Like the ending of your last post: "there have been exactly 0 cases where the Universe has been affirmed to exist in the absence of the experience of it." I understand it to be logically true, but what is the utility of asserting this? Since all knowledge only exists in the universe, which can't be indpendently verified outside of itself, the assertion seems to have no meaning.

Is the point we can't know what we can't know? Because that's a truism with no utility. This is where philosophy loses me.

Regarding the emboldened passage, I've been working for ~6-7 years on trying to change that. During that time, I've been working on a theoretical model that lends itself to the development of a formula that may provide loads of practical utility. Once complete, I intend to submit it for peer-review to the most capable audience I can possibly find. The general idea is to arrive at a workable, practical formula without ever controlling for observer participation in the same way that classical formulas do. Why has it been ~6-7 years? Because it's fucking hard Cheesy

The fact that the formula happens to graph very nicely gives me hope for its validity.

Other than that, you're right. It's not an obviously practical way to live, but at a fundamental level, assuming such a perspective -- while at the same time dismissing it in favor of practical considerations as you suggest -- can have pragmatic effects. I hold such a perspective, and I've derived a lot of personal meaning from it which has certainly shaped how I view the world and interact within it.

Well good luck with your work, it sounds revolutionary if it pans out.

Thanks! I hope it turns out that way, I haven't seen anything else like it anywhere. It's rare to have a truly unique idea, and this is one of the few ideas (if not the only one) I can truly call my own. Because such a formula figures observer participation into the mix, the result is naturally one that not only models a relationship between the observer and everything else, but quantifies the effects of observation upon real events. Specifically, a graphing of this equation seems to suggest that observation is an energy distribution function. The kicker is that it also seems to provide a theoretical basis establishing the validity of a source of infinite energy.

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: BADecker on May 29, 2015, 01:12:49 AM

Quote from: Beliathon on May 28, 2015, 10:59:23 PM

Quote from: zeeshsnrehman2 on May 27, 2015, 10:39:20 PM

Quote from: Beliathon on May 27, 2015, 07:40:58 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on May 27, 2015, 04:35:20 PM

but i would like to ask to an atheist what happens after death?

Lots of things, but none of them will involve you. The universe keeps spinning totally indifferent to your existence, as if you never existed at all.

The universe won't care, and you won't care either. Only your loved ones will be affected.

what happens to YOU. not the universe because thats obvious

You cease to exist, and slowly rot away to dust. I know this comes as a shock for you, but that's obvious too.

Quote from: BADecker on May 28, 2015, 10:39:02 AM

Well, first off, nobody knows that there were billions of years...

You are aware that when you look into a telescope you are essentially looking back in time? The light from the stars takes tens or hundreds of thousands of years to reach us.

The Hubble Telescope allows us to look back in time an incredible distance. Check out what happens when the Hubble points its camera at a seemingly empty "black" area of space for four months straight. We can see 13 billion year old starlight.

In 2015 the age of the universe is not at all up for debate, it is a scientific fact that our universe is at minumum thirteen billion years old. Fun fact, when you look at the sun you are looking back in time about eleven minutes, or said another way you are viewing the light that left the sun eleven light minutes ago.

Wrong!

We know that the speed of light isn't a constant right now. We know that it is faster sometimes and slower at other times. We know that gravitation affects the speed of light. We also know that other constants aren't always quite the same. In addition, not all scientists believe that Planck's Constant is a constant. Google "variations in Planck's Constant." Keeping this in mind, nobody knows if any of the constants were anywhere near what they are now, say, in the time that we call 10,000 years ago.

Everyone has heard of absolute zero. Few people have heard of "absolute hot." Planck calculated absolute hot. Other scientists calculate figures for absolute hot that are extremely different than Planck's.

We don't really know for a fact that our guesses for the distance away of the far galaxies, or the age of the universe, are even close to reality. And this is common knowledge among scientists and astronomers, though they don't like to look at it or think about it.

Then we have you, proclaiming the guesses as fact.

The speed of light is constant in a vaccuum. The only time it varies is in different mediums (through glass, through water, etc.). Gravity wells affects space-time, so it can affect the direction of light, but not the speed of light, which is always constant. You again are claiming your ignorance as an asset. You cannot disclaim facts by throwing bad logic at it.

At the risk of posting a source completely over your head and which you'll find some way to dismiss illogically anyway: http://www.quora.com/Does-gravity-affect-the-speed-of-light

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: Beliathon on May 28, 2015, 10:59:23 PM

Quote from: zeeshsnrehman2 on May 27, 2015, 10:39:20 PM

Quote from: Beliathon on May 27, 2015, 07:40:58 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on May 27, 2015, 04:35:20 PM

but i would like to ask to an atheist what happens after death?

Lots of things, but none of them will involve you. The universe keeps spinning totally indifferent to your existence, as if you never existed at all.

The universe won't care, and you won't care either. Only your loved ones will be affected.

what happens to YOU. not the universe because thats obvious

You cease to exist, and slowly rot away to dust. I know this comes as a shock for you, but that's obvious too.

Quote from: BADecker on May 28, 2015, 10:39:02 AM

Well, first off, nobody knows that there were billions of years...

You are aware that when you look into a telescope you are essentially looking back in time? The light from the stars takes tens or hundreds of thousands of years to reach us.

The Hubble Telescope allows us to look back in time an incredible distance. Check out what happens when the Hubble points its camera at a seemingly empty "black" area of space for four months straight. We can see 13 billion year old starlight.

In 2015 the age of the universe is not at all up for debate, it is a scientific fact that our universe is at minumum thirteen billion years old. Fun fact, when you look at the sun you are looking back in time about eleven minutes, or said another way you are viewing the light that left the sun eleven light minutes ago.

About 8.5 minutes. It seems like a minor thing, but at the speed of light, that's an additional 28 million miles. Because of the eliptical orbit of the Earth, at it's furthest, light takes 507 seconds to reach Earth, and 490 seconds at the shortest distance.

Alphi

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Falconer on May 29, 2015, 10:54:44 AM

Quote from: Lauda on May 29, 2015, 09:56:08 AM

You're asking me if both religious people and atheists sins would be considered equal if they did the same ones? That's a yes.
The good deeds would decide who's better and who's worse.

It's okay. But me, as a religion man state that sometimes I was amazed to atheists. But why atheists hate religion people so much? Have atheists ever been disturbed by religions so that made a disputation between us?

Yes they used to be burned at the stake for saying god doesn't exist... and they still get death threats from religious fanatics today.

Alphi

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Lauda on May 29, 2015, 05:42:47 AM

That's not really the name of the genre is it? I know that you can enable hardcore version in some games that is the same thing.
You're right. Infinite re-spawns in real life wouldn't make sense, unless our memory was reset and we started fresh with a new character.

Yes Rogue-Like is a sub genre of RPG.
some notable examples would be "Sword of the stars: The Pit" and "FTL" and I think "Survivor squad" counts as a roguelike too.
(all great games I might add)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roguelike

If life was a computer game then Athiests would be playing RogueLikes and happy religious people would be playing super mario or rainbow islands LOL

Quote from: Lauda on May 29, 2015, 05:42:47 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Atheist does not hate religion, they just extremely dislike authority of a certain unseen power/knowledge. they are more or less like scientists, "believe only what you see"

Then I ask myself why in the name of everything that exists does the religious folk here complain about Gavin and the other developers having authority in regards to Bitcoin? Cheesy

Quite a rational way of thinking. Roll Eyes

Update to post under: It's kind of interconnected, since we have expanded the subject a bit to include multiple things. It's much better than the nonsense that BADecker has posted about the existence of the universe.

I think Jesus would have liked Bitcoin.. after all he was the one who went into the temple and smashed up the tables of the money lenders.
If he was around today he would probably do the same thing to JP Morgan and Western union. I dont speak for Jesus, Muhammad or Gautama (buddha) but its very clear from their teachings and actions that all 3 of them did not like the practice of usury and exploiting people for profit.

I think in crypto currency there is plenty of room for Athiests, Revolutionaries, Libertarians, Leftists, Religious people and average Joe.
Satoshi was very specific about being completely neutral.

we can all be one big happy family in crypto-land.. Grin

Falconer

legendary

Activity: 2660

Merit: 1141

Quote from: Lauda on May 29, 2015, 09:56:08 AM

You're asking me if both religious people and atheists sins would be considered equal if they did the same ones? That's a yes.
The good deeds would decide who's better and who's worse.

It's okay. But me, as a religion man state that sometimes I was amazed to atheists. But why atheists hate religion people so much? Have atheists ever been disturbed by religions so that made a disputation between us?

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on May 29, 2015, 07:49:53 AM

Quote from: Lauda on May 28, 2015, 03:52:02 PM

Quote from: Falconer on May 28, 2015, 03:03:01 PM

Usually religion people do good deeds to get heaven

This proves that the usual religious person is actually a bad one. They're helping others for the wrong reasons, for their own salvation. This is selfish.
The majority of atheists who do help don't do it because of such reasons.

You know I've never thought of that before. They want to get into heaven, so they help others but the main reason for helping is to selfishly help themselves, which is bad, so they don't goto heaven after all.

I'm going to remember that one.

This is reasonably true. Whenever anyone does anything, he does it for selfish reasons. The thing about religious people helping other people to get to Heaven is, God is selflessly working through the people so that they will get to Heaven, even though the people don't realize it.

Imagine that, Fluffer. God is working as hard as He can with you, just so you will go to Heaven.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Falconer on May 29, 2015, 07:30:21 AM

But is religious people who did badness same with atheists? They have religion but don't care about heaven and hell so they did everything what they want. And I didn't say atheists is good and religious person is bad.

You're asking me if both religious people and atheists sins would be considered equal if they did the same ones? That's a yes.
The good deeds would decide who's better and who's worse.

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on May 29, 2015, 07:49:53 AM

You know I've never thought of that before. They want to get into heaven, so they help others but the main reason for helping is to selfishly help themselves, which is bad, so they don't goto heaven after all.

I'm going to remember that one.

My brain sometimes comes up with all possible outcomes. I'm not saying that everyone is doing this, but I'm pretty sure that quite a good portion of them are. If I recall correctly when you go to a priest to confess your sins (I have no idea how this is called?), he sometimes tells you to do a good deed to someone. This is where our man made religious have flaws. The person will do something good because if they don't do it their confession would be invalid. Selfish? I would say so.

Buffer Overflow

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1016

Quote from: Lauda on May 28, 2015, 03:52:02 PM

Quote from: Falconer on May 28, 2015, 03:03:01 PM

Usually religion people do good deeds to get heaven

This proves that the usual religious person is actually a bad one. They're helping others for the wrong reasons, for their own salvation. This is selfish.
The majority of atheists who do help don't do it because of such reasons.

You know I've never thought of that before. They want to get into heaven, so they help others but the main reason for helping is to selfishly help themselves, which is bad, so they don't goto heaven after all.

I'm going to remember that one.

Falconer

legendary

Activity: 2660

Merit: 1141

Quote from: Lauda on May 28, 2015, 03:52:02 PM

This proves that the usual religious person is actually a bad one. They're helping others for the wrong reasons, for their own salvation. This is selfish.
The majority of atheists who do help don't do it because of such reasons.

But is religious people who did badness same with atheists? They have religion but don't care about heaven and hell so they did everything what they want. And I didn't say atheists is good and religious person is bad.

aysha985343

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: Lauda on May 29, 2015, 05:42:47 AM

Then I ask myself why in the name of everything that exists does the religious folk here complain about Gavin and the other developers having authority in regards to Bitcoin? Cheesy

Quite a rational way of thinking. Roll Eyes

[/quote]

i agree but that is off the topic.

we are talking about religion and no religion not gavin Cheesy

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Alphi on May 29, 2015, 03:39:28 AM

a rogue-like is a genre of game where if you die you lose everything.. your character does not re-spawn and you usually cannot reload from an earlier save... there is only one life. As a result the game is more intense and the player has a greater appreciation for life.

That's not really the name of the genre is it? I know that you can enable hardcore version in some games that is the same thing.
You're right. Infinite re-spawns in real life wouldn't make sense, unless our memory was reset and we started fresh with a new character.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Atheist does not hate religion, they just extremely dislike authority of a certain unseen power/knowledge. they are more or less like scientists, "believe only what you see"

Then I ask myself why in the name of everything that exists does the religious folk here complain about Gavin and the other developers having authority in regards to Bitcoin? Cheesy

Quite a rational way of thinking. Roll Eyes

Update to post under: It's kind of interconnected, since we have expanded the subject a bit to include multiple things. It's much better than the nonsense that BADecker has posted about the existence of the universe.

Alphi

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Lauda on May 28, 2015, 03:52:02 PM

Could you elaborate on the 'rouge-likes'?

a rogue-like is a genre of game where if you die you lose everything.. your character does not re-spawn and you usually cannot reload from an earlier save... there is only one life. As a result the game is more intense and the player has a greater appreciation for life.

Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 418. (Read 901367 times)