Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 439. (Read 901367 times)

Atheists may not attempt to prove that God does not exist. But if atheists believe as the dictionary definition of the word "atheism" suggests, then they believe that God does not exist. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t:

Considering that one of the most frequent objections to atheism is the notion, "Well what would stop you from raping and murdering everybody then?", it amazes me that it never occurs to the theist just how bad they come across practically admitting the only thing stopping them from going on a rape/murder spree is the thought they are being watched and judged by an omnipotent super-being.

Let me stop you there. Before I even read the rest of your post you need to understand something *real* fucking important, something that theists struggle to even acknowledge, which is the fact atheism does not make the claim, "God does not exist".

Atheism is the rejection of the theist assertion, "God exists", on the basis that the assertion requires logical fallacy and is intellectually dishonest.

Atheists do not seek to prove the non-existence of 'God' any more than we seek to prove the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns protecting us from mischief-making green pixies each day.

Theists assert something. Atheists dismiss that assertion because it is not a reasonable or supported assertion, not because they need to prove it to be wrong.

Big difference. Learn it. Accept it.

Actually, there is intelligent design in everything we see in nature. Because we don't understand why the design is there, we use the word "God." God may be an entity, or God may be simply the way things unfolded. But because we and the animals have self and consciousness in many ways, probably God has self and consciousness way advanced of what we are. It's in the design.

It absolutely would, and so would NOT protecting and defending your home and family. It is your personal religion.

Nobody has much proof of anything without great pain or great joy. Strong evidence for the existence of God can be found here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395.  But without great pain or great joy in some way, we can all deny the proof, making it non-proof for us.

If someone attacks your home and you desperately defend it and your family with arms in your hands, would this go for religious zealotry? If not, why then "passionately seeking to refute bullshit theism" (or anything, for that matter) should necessarily be considered as such?

It all comes down to probability.  It's a lot more probable that there is no god rather than there is a god.

2.

Except that isn't at all what the objectively reasoned challenges to theist assertions actually is. Sure, if we were to employ the same theist versus theist tactics of subjectively spinning our own interpretations as being correct over your subjectively spun interpretations then, yes, you might have a point. But when a theist position is dismantled by way of critical analysis and objective reasoning, namely, the employment of valid argument which exposes the theist position to be the arbitrary baseless fallacy it is then, no, we are right because our argument is right while yours fails, not because we are simply declaring that we right and you are wrong.


[/quote]

neither side has proof of their position.  One side claims God exists, but has no proof.  the other claims God does not, but has no proof.  

you can parse an individual argument and say 'look the theists say this, which is clearly absurd' so they're wrong, but their core assertion, that there is a God, is not disprovable based on any such example.

at the end of the day neither side can prove anything and yet both puff their chests out and claim the other is wrong.

This is the same in political discussions.  "I'm right, they're wrong".  

Two things you don't talk about in bars - politics and religion, for the simple fact that people often take these things so personally as to make them flash points for a debate that devolves into an argument.  They are beliefs, aka opinions, not provable facts in both cases, so there is no 'winner', ever.

The hardcore bible thumpers could never deal with devoting their lives to something which is wrong, so they refuse to believe there is no God, or even allow for the possibility in many cases.  They have no proof and have claimed that 'faith' is the key.  Problem there is that this faith is to be taken without proof and they have conveniently asserted that this is the core of faith itself.

The Athiests are simply the polar opposite.  They've staked out another position and refuse to believe they could be wrong either, or even allow for the possibility in many cases, as allowing for the unknown would nudge them toward being an agnostic.  They don't have any proof either and many times will conveniently claim that lack of proof is the proof, which is almost as good as the reasoning behind the faith argument.  

I go back to my basic premise that this is about ego.  The need to believe in one's own core beliefs.  Anything that may run counter to it is to be killed at all costs, not for the sake of being correct, but for the sake of sense of self, for sake of one's own ego.

Just because somebody creates an AI program in a computer, doesn't mean the AI will necessarily realize that it was created by a form of intelligence that is greater than itself. But, if it is informed of such by its creator(s), will it believe? Will it believe if the option to believe is taken away, and it is instructed firmly, so that it knows rather than believes?

I think it is more threatening to think that someone does not need religion than it is to think that they don't want religion. If you believe that all morality and goodness comes from a God, then you see someone who is happy, ethical, loved; but without any religion... That could start things crumbling.  
It is why even obvious facts, like the fact there was no global flood, are defended. If the garden of Eden is provably impossible by DNA analysis then it calls into question the entire Bible. So DNA must be false, or a trick of the devil.
Minds are interesting things.

From the dictionary definition listed in https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11350691:Seems to me that an atheist who responds to anti-atheism posts zealously is not only a zealot, but he is a religious zealot, as well.

Well, it may not indeed be a top necessity, but how can it otherwise be proved truly authentic? The proof of the pudding is in the eating...

I guess you are expanding the meaning of the word too far. Believing in something (which is what you are evidently trying to say) doesn't necessarily constitute a religion...

A true hypocrite would first care for his ego & keep it safe, monetizing inevitably comes next but isnt always a necessity.

Perhaps atheists have their own personal religion, but atheism in general is religion. Its god is the human mind.

You may be laughing on the outside, but your posts show that you are finally coming to realize that all people have religion on the inside.

Obviously, you are free to call it whatever you desire. And it may fall under other other categories than religion. But the truth remains, according to the dictionary definitions of "religion," atheism is religion.

That is an interesting notion. Do you think that the reason theists try to fallaciously claim atheism to be equal to a religion because they actually can't understand the concept of moral sentience without religion?

Actually, come to think of it, back when I was a fence-sitting agnostic, I actually believed it was impossible to be a genuine atheist, with the associated 'the end is the end of me' acceptance, without losing one's mind. I now know that, actually, once you become an intellectualised atheist, by way of reaching that position through much thought and consideration coupled with objective reasoning and critical thinking, it becomes absolutely natural a concept.

I didn't exist before I did and that wasn't a problem, so why would not existing after I do be any different?

Now I'm more interested why it is such a pain in your ass ("passionately seeking to refute bullshit theism"). How old are you really? I could just say that bullshit in someone else's head is money in your pocket. If you cannot monetize (on) it, then all your bigotry is futile and not worth a fuck...