Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 429. (Read 901367 times)

Now, now. You know full well that pollsters can elicit the answers they want by the wording of their polls. Polls are almost useless. Besides, all the suicided people who are polled can be influenced way more than live ones.

 

BADecker, have you talked to many people who've committed suicide?  Taken a poll?

I have a friend whos atheist, I wouldnt say he hates people who are in a religion.

But, more of takes it on a scientific approach, telling me how can he believe something when its based on blind faith.

The Great First Cause is not the result of effect. He is outside of what we know as the universe, a concept that we don't understand.

You might hope this. But you don't know it. It's exactly the kind of thing that I was talking about when I expressed the surprise that atheists will have when they are finally forced to believe that they are way off base... forced to believe in God by God Himself.

Also theists in my experience are old, uninteresting, fugly, bad at sex, and smell like stale cheese. And undesirable among young people.

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/how-races-and-religions-match-in-online-dating/

Yes, inasmuch as theory-making is axiomatically predicated upon mental processes, and inasmuch as logic constitutes the rules of valid thinking, I believe we need to defer to logic as an absolute objectifier.

Furthermore, I believe that objective and subjective are fundamentally inseparable, despite being inverse to each other.  I believe that in every subject-object relationship there is an absolute objectifier that functions similar to a God-like entity, and so it follows I also believe the Intelligent Design process works on multiple levels.  I think there is a sort-of archetype for Intelligently-Designed systems which serves as an objective, referential template for all other ID systems, the result being that all other ID systems are isomorphic to the archetype.

And, with regards to Hume and Descartes, I would say I wouldn't ascribe to either of those ideas (fundamentally).  Cartesian Dualism is easily proven false by the sameness-in-difference principle (i.e. mental and physical reality must logically reduce to a common medium), and for Hume, I think there is self-apparently knowledge that is available to us which is independent of experience.

Well, when you put it that way, I guess it does seem a bit ironic, doesn't it?

It's something you feel, or you don't. A highly personal experience. There is no point to ask such questions, it's almost like asking someone why does he prefer one music genre over some other and then, maybe, trying to persuade him that he's wrong (probably not the best example, but you know what I've meant).


While I do agree that religion was/is recognized by ruling caste as yet another fine mechanism to control the masses, I don't think that its origins are in any way related to this. Religious ideas are as old as human species. Abuse came later.

Also... weaker minded people, seriously? Sure, bring on more stereotypes. I am certainly glad that you feel somehow superior to religious people, but it is very likely that you are not. I, for one, know plenty of atheists who aren't particularly "strong minded", to put it politely.

Just so you know, not that you will ever understand because your conditioning is so deeply ingrained into your psyche there is no other you that exists outside of the 'special' paranormal narrative you believe yourself to be living in, calamitous events are actually easier to cope with as an atheist because we understand that it is all cause-and-effect action/reaction which resulted in the calamitous event, not that some mythical super-being decided that day to fuck with us, you know, because he loves us so or is teaching us something or [insert arbitrary reasoning to excuse your god here].

Then when calamity hits this kind of person, and he is forced to believe something, he literally goes crazy, because he isn't familiar with believing. Then he commits suicide and doesn't exist any longer.



EDIT: Of course, that is nothing compared with how freaked out he will be in the resurrection when he is forced to believe God exists.

I should start a VOD haters club / thread topic next time.

Yes, I agree with your perception. 


Oh surely I did my work too, not just pray. Sometimes there is a big problem that so hard to resolved by yourself, and you need a something that can calm yourself and make your mind be refresh. I named it praying. Maybe the other person have the way he like to help himself when facing a problem. 

This just proves my point. The main religions were created with that purpose of controlling the masses. The weaker minded fellows need someone to believe in; something that will make them push forward.

Definitely. Believing that a certain "someone" will help you in life and save you once you die is definitely the harder way.  

I definitely agree on that. I even think life is better as one doesn't have any restrictions nor obligations that sometimes take up time.
Now tell me where to buy those jetpacks(?). Great video.

I believe Vod has clearly asserted the truth in that regards:


We don't need religious death-cults and their 'magical' symbolism and rituals to find joy in living. This video, for example, fills me with joy and wonder yet I am absolutely able to understand the principles of flight enough that there is no mystery behind what you are watching, but it is still awe inspiring.

No 'mysticism' needed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czy0pXRRZcs

"I am not playing with death. I am playing with life" - Yves Rossy (Jetman)

Oh fine, fine, take the easy way out 

Shortcuttin' son-of-a...

You'd be amazed at the peace of mind you get when you realize you don't have to believe in anything.  You can just exist. 

Real Atheists, not the ones who like to call themselves atheists for fun, always has a good proof-based explanation for it, I believe Religion makes them feel like being inside a Petri dish, or they notice that religion is like walking with a cloth on the eyes. But even whith all the disadvantages a religion may have, I think mankind would be chaos without having something to believe...

Interesting, is your believe in an intelligent designer "absolute", so you believe it to be an absolute truth according to logic?

Just in their ideals, Hume was more of an empiricist, Descartes believed in the mind separate from the body/brain.

There's a difference between asking whether empiricism is the basis of metaphysics, and asking whether something empirical is the basis of metaphysics.

Empiricism is just a theory of knowledge acquisition, i.e. the theory that any and all knowledge is gained through sensory experience.  Metaphysics differs from classical physics in that it does not control for observation, and therefore there can be no direct metaphysical 'evidence.'

To that extent, if you are an empiricist, you would probably reach the conclusion that something empirical, i.e. the brain and sensory organs, gives rise to the type of abstract thinking required for metaphysical ideas. 

If you are a metaphysicist (ultimately, not practically), you might reject the Positivistic Universe assumption and consider that the brain and sensory organs might not exist mutually exclusive from that which perceives it, and thus may be affected by it.

But regardless of whether you adopt an empirical or metaphysical view of reality, the fact remains that all we are doing is tossing around ideas according to logical rules to build better and better theories.  We are limited to ideas and the rules they obey.  We have no choice but to regard the rules of logic as absolutely unbreakable and foolproof, because it is the only means by which we have cognitive understanding of anything that makes sense.

The concluding point is that this means that all we can do is create an understanding of things as it relates to our mind.  Talking about reality independent of mind is beyond our cognitive capability.

With regards to Descartes and Hume, could you be a little more specific?