Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 424. (Read 901368 times)

It is illogical to accept this from you since you don't even suggest what is illogical about the things you think are my arguments.

Does religion grant permission for it's victims to think? I'm guessing that's strictly controlled.

You apply no logic to your arguments and are either blinded by your beliefs or are just close minded. either way you are a waste of time to address.

This is true about your religion of atheism or whatever it is. It might be true about many other religions, as well. If a christian thinks this about his Christian religion, he has a lot of re-thinking to do.

Poor analogy.

Religion is most certainly not a "safety belt".
It's a hardened steel chain, designed not for the benefit of the captive.

Absolutely not. Many children love their Daddy, and allow their seat belts to remain buckled, simply because Daddy asked them to.

Too true, Lets take the saying "Good God fearing person" and dissect it.
It means you are only Good because you Fear repercussions from God and infers that you can be trusted because of this.

Those that choose to do Good out of no fear have the True Moral high ground.

Daddy tells his little children in the back seat to leave their seat belts buckled. Sometimes the kids unbuckle the seat belts anyway. So, Daddy stops and re-buckles the seat belts around the kids. After this happens a few times, Daddy threatens the kids with punishment.

Why does Daddy threaten the punishment? Because the family has places to go and things to do, and people to see. Daddy wants the inexperienced children to arrive safely. Daddy doesn't have all day to keep on stopping and re-buckling the seat belts. In fact, this game becomes so active that the kids are unbuckling before Daddy gets going again. It is a fun game for the kids, and Daddy, too, for a while. But it has to stop. It is unsafe.

IF Daddy has to punish, does he do it because he wants to? Does he do it for the fun of it? No! He does it for the safety of the kids. You can bet that there have been injured kids because they wouldn't follow the instructions, and even the punishment, to leave their seat belt buckled.

When God rules by fear, He is doing it for your safety. He doesn't want you to spend an eternity in Hell.

Now you are calling the real world evidence dishonesty.

Again, your AI question assumes something that is not real. Thus, it is not possible to answer your question with a real answer.

Since you, an atheist, don't seem to want to use existing dictionary definitions, but would rather play with words that either have no definition, or that you define according to your own personal definitions, there is no way to answer you accurately. Why not? Without dictionary definitions, words are essentially meaningless, except when they are directly defined in their context.

Do you want to express your definitions of the words that you are unwilling to accept the dictionary definitions of? Or have you done so in a hidden way (which would indicate deception on your part)?

Come on. Spit it out clearly. Nobody has all day to try to decipher your foolishness.

I keep telling you again and again. A god that demands worship via fear of punishment isn't worthy of my worship. The only thing that would do it that way (because it would have no other way) is the devil in disguise.
Yeah, have fun with that.

Glaringly obvious when you think about it. Well.... It is for those with their eyes open.

Again with the dishonest fundie routine.

I said that we atheists were willing to pretend that your desperately clinging to a narrow dictionary definition could be ignored and that, in return, I don't think it is unreasonable for me to ask you to deal with a simple thought experiment.

Unfortunately the dishonesty is strong in you.

You keep attempting to ignore the premise of the thought experiment by introducing your own world-view when the whole point is that both atheist and fundamentalist Christian were being asked to suspend existing perspectives so that the thought-experiment question could be answered honestly.

So:

I'm glad you are having fun. After all, your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Of course if it did, you wouldn't be an atheist.

Your yes-or-no question is not answerable because there isn't any fallacious assertion, as shown by, 'The fact that there is no explanation for the existence of the universe that is based on clear scientific fact, is the almost absolute proof that, whatever the Greatness is that caused the universe to come into existence, fits the dictionary definition of the word "God."'

What, "you dishonest fundie"? Which part of that is harsh when it is completely correct?


That question is irrelevant and the only reason you are asking it is because you are being a dishonest fundamentalist Christian, again.

See? I can use that phrase quite often with you because your debating tactics are so dishonest and fallacious.

Answer the question that was posed:

Thank you.   

Just curious. You, a newbie, are obviously talking like this to hide your writing style from us, so that we won't know what your old handle was. Who are you?

 

Why do use such harsh language with me? After all, you are essentially a pretty nice guy, or you wouldn't even waste the time on a forum like this.

In answer to your points and question, would the AI recognize that it was built by someone, or some group of people?

The reason I ask is, we, the human beings, are the AI that God created.

The fact that there is no explanation for the existence of the universe that is based on clear scientific fact, is the almost absolute proof that, whatever the Greatness is that caused the universe to come into existence, fits the dictionary definition of the word "God."

There is nothing wrong with the fact that you are unwilling to accept part of the dictionary definition of the word "atheist" as applying to yourself. However, whatever the dictionary definitions are, they are applicable to you by others... even if it upsets you. If they weren't, they wouldn't be in the dictionary.

Thanks for playing.

Well of course it is different for every Christian, at least a little, but...

A Christian is aware of the fact that God owns everything, and that God is perfect. The Christian is aware that he is not perfect, because he can feel the sentence of death in his body - the coming of old age. This causes the Christian to fear God. Since God has shown Himself to be honorable among people, this fear turns into respect.

God is just, and punishes those who disobey Him. But He is also loving and merciful to those who try to obey Him, and believe in the forgiveness of Jesus in areas where they fail because of their imperfection.

It seems unfair when those who are against God - atheists, etc. - receive good things, while the good Christian often receives bad things. Certainly this can be upsetting to the Christian at times. However, this life generally lasts for less than a hundred years. So, that's less than a hundred years of enjoyment for the ungodly, and less than a hundred years of problems for the Christian. Then comes an eternity under the sentence that God will pronounce for each and every person individually.

Anybody who likes pain and problems is crazy.
Anybody who doesn't like pleasure and enjoyment and pleasantness is almost as crazy.
Anybody who chooses the good things here for 100 years, and thereby accepts an eternity of pain and problems, is crazier than the craziest.

Turn while you have the chance. Because if you don't, there may come a time for you that you will be locked in to your position of being against God, without the ability to change. Forever in the afterlife won't be fun for you.

The best case for religion's existence in the twenty first century is an ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance. The worst case for religion is the merging of man and machine.

Atheist don't hate religion, they just sometimes make fun of it and they don't like people who are really obsessed with their religion so they require special treatment because they oh so very religious and oh so close to this man in the sky with his angels.
But actually most atheist just don't care about religion. Why on earth would they?
It usually works other way around - religious people hate atheists. Their best argument is that without religion nothing will hold a person back from doing bad things. For me, that's an insult.

Tell you what, you dishonest fundie, seeing as all you have in your locker is to keep screeching about the 'dictionary definition' of the word 'atheist' and be particularly narrow-minded in which dictionary definition you are clinging to in order to desperately pretend you have a reasoned counter-argument, let's humour you a little and pretend, *real hard*, that the word 'atheist' actually does mean what you want it to mean and, therefore, us atheists cannot challenge your world-view.

Let us occupy this bizarre little perspective of yours, for a thought experiment, ok?

1.We create an artificial intelligence which is capable of utilising multiple sensors to observe and measure the reality it exists in, namely, The Universe.

2. None of its input warrants it concluding your 'God' exists.

3. The lack of its belief in your God is derived solely because there is no non-fallacious argument that would justify a belief in the existence of your ominpotent, omniscient, super-being deity.


Q: In that you are unable to present a cogent argument which would justify the AI accepting the existence of your 'God', is the rejection of your fallacious assertion reasonable grounds to continue accusing the AI's atheistic world-view as being religious in nature?