Author

Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 441. (Read 901367 times)

legendary
Activity: 2240
Merit: 1254
Thread-puller extraordinaire
May 12, 2015, 08:25:22 AM
if an atheist comes along and want to deny the existence of the Everlasting Blue Sky, the four winds and the stars that would be pretty funny Smiley.

I'm not seeing the joke. The religion you cite still invokes the supernatural. It's not like atheists deny the existence of stone buildings which have altars in them, now, is it?

legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000
May 12, 2015, 08:13:16 AM
This topic is a clear proof of the superiority of Tengrism Smiley. Clear, democratic and simple religion, no officials, no artificial rules, no "Bank of Shamans", no crap. I'd recommend it for the more spiritual kind of anarchists and direct democracy believers.
The best of all, if an atheist comes along and want to deny the existence of the Everlasting Blue Sky, the four winds and the stars that would be pretty funny Smiley.
legendary
Activity: 2240
Merit: 1254
Thread-puller extraordinaire
May 12, 2015, 02:20:15 AM
There are certainly some poisonous people in every religion, but they do not even live by the rules of their religion since every single religion condemns murder, theft, fraud, etc. - you have to be about as narrow-minded as a jihadist to call theism in general poisonous.

I see you're not exactly up to speed on what mainstream religious texts contain. Try actually reading them, most atheists are considerably more educated about the content of these toxic texts than the adherents to their dogma. Murder, rape, slavery, rape, incest - It's all in there, even if the apologists pretend it isn't or try to spin it another way by pretending it can be interpreted differently, it is actually pretty explicitly detailed.

So, with regards to your apologia about how the 'bad theists' don't 'live by the rules' of their religion, you're wrong. It is actually the 'good ones' that don't live by the rules of their religion.

Nice try on the usual, "Ah well militant atheists are just as narrow-minded as religious fundamentalists", it's almost as though you believe this series of words actually construct a reasonable assertion. I'll give you a little tip, they don't.

Religion poisons everything. Nothing 'good' can be done with religion that cannot be done equally as well without, unless you think you know better, fancy giving it a shot? Name me something positive and worthwhile which cannot be achieved without believing in invisible sky-fairies.

legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
May 12, 2015, 01:57:33 AM

@thejoint, I really enjoy reading your posts. Re: what you said about the Scientific Method being, in essence, unproveable as it relies on some basic assumptions (such as a positivistic Universe). It's a thought provoking point, and I agree entirely.

I am quite a skeptical person, and since I was young, I have used a sort-of "probability-based" way of understanding the world. I understand that nothing can be proved 100% one way or the other, but if something has overwhelming evidence that it exists (such as the force of gravity), then I "pretend" that it is 100% true. Equally, I find the concept of a God has so little evidence, that I "pretend" that it is 100% false, and call myself an atheist.

So, although I understand that the Scientific Method DOES make some philosophical assumptions in order to work, it seems that through repetition and empiricism it gives us a better idea of the world than anything else. Of course, this isn't strictly true (why should the number of repetitions make anything more certain if the universe isn't positivistic in the first place...)

Oh man, this is why I try not to think too deeply about this sort of shit, you get to a point and realize that nothing can ever be proven, your life is totally insignificant, you might not even exist and nothing is real.  Cheesy


First, thanks Smiley

A slight clarification on the positivistic Universe assumption:  This assumption is used specifically because it controls for the observer in data collection.  By controlling for the observer, we can make "objective" claims about one thing in relation to some other thing(s).  This is perfectly valid, but one must simply know its implications.  Accordingly, I'm not sure I would describe the Scientific Method as "unproveable."   It's perfectly valid and can lead to sound conclusions, but in this case, "sound" always has a margin-of-error attached to it.  

Tying to your last sentence, I think you can prove things in the absolute sense of the word.  There is no margin-of-error attached to our understanding of the limitations of inductive reasoning.  This constitutes 'a priori' knowledge, independent of experience, and there's a lot of it available to us.  For all relevant consideration, logic is a predicate for truth and not vice-versa.

And yeah, sometimes I need a break from it, too Smiley
legendary
Activity: 2240
Merit: 1254
Thread-puller extraordinaire
May 12, 2015, 01:23:31 AM
Real atheists don't care about religions. Why would you hate something you don't believe in?

Satanism doesn't approve of god, but you can't be a satanist without acknowledging that god exists.

Awesome logic. Works kinda like this, "Real(tm) people who have been vaccinated against the devastating and virulent mind-melting disease don't care about devastating mind-melting diseases".

Whilst, true, being atheist does not denote anything other than a rejection of the fallacious theist assertion, most atheists are intelligent enough to understand just how poisonous theism is and how much harm it causes to the human race, that they do care about it enough to want to help those who are afflicted with it to be able to free their minds from the toxin by way of encouraging them to learn about objective reasoning and critical thinking. That way they can see for themselves the reality of the situation, rather than just being told to believe something, which is the disease vector of theist dogma.

sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
May 12, 2015, 01:15:36 AM
Even most religious people hate religion.    They hate religions that aren't their own.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
May 11, 2015, 06:23:43 PM
Consider the definitions of the word "religion" from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:
Quote
religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion:
a religion to one's vow.

Idioms
9. get religion, Informal.

    to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
    to resolve to mend one's errant ways:
    The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.


Note that not all the definitions have to do with some formal religion or named church or church body. Some of the definitions pertain to "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

The point is, if your personal religion includes allowing all kinds of other religions to exist, how can anyone get to the truth, since almost every human being has religion according to one or more of the definitions listed? If your religion is to allow all the others, what about allowing religions that don't allow yours?

You better draw a line in your personal religious beliefs. The line better say how far you are going to go in allowing other religions. If you don't, one of them might up and destroy you, because you allowed it and its violence to exist.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1188
Merit: 1016
May 11, 2015, 04:52:25 PM
Yeah, I don't hate religion itself, or the concept of a god. I think it's silly, but I can see that it's useful for some people and can enrich their lives. What I don't like is when religion starts trying to control other aspects of society, such as individuals' rights, laws, and scientific progress. I also have a problem with religious people who try and "save" me, and mostly don't like their self-righteous attitude.

Hate is a strong word, I suppose I'd reserve my hate for any people who take these ideas to the extreme and destroy other people's lives in the process, for instance persecution of gays/non-believers, wars, torture and killing in the name of Religion. But I'm not really hating the religion here, just the crazy people who take it too seriously.
legendary
Activity: 2828
Merit: 1515
May 11, 2015, 04:38:37 PM
Atheists don't truly hate religion itself, I believe it's the people behind it. We all meet those crazy christians, or islamic extremists that take religion to another level. They make it revolve around their entire life and let it influence what they do on a daily basis. You can chose what you want to believe, but as far as hatred goes, I don't blame Atheists for hating religion because of the people behind it.
legendary
Activity: 1188
Merit: 1016
May 11, 2015, 04:37:12 PM

@thejoint, I really enjoy reading your posts. Re: what you said about the Scientific Method being, in essence, unproveable as it relies on some basic assumptions (such as a positivistic Universe). It's a thought provoking point, and I agree entirely.

I am quite a skeptical person, and since I was young, I have used a sort-of "probability-based" way of understanding the world. I understand that nothing can be proved 100% one way or the other, but if something has overwhelming evidence that it exists (such as the force of gravity), then I "pretend" that it is 100% true. Equally, I find the concept of a God has so little evidence, that I "pretend" that it is 100% false, and call myself an atheist.

So, although I understand that the Scientific Method DOES make some philosophical assumptions in order to work, it seems that through repetition and empiricism it gives us a better idea of the world than anything else. Of course, this isn't strictly true (why should the number of repetitions make anything more certain if the universe isn't positivistic in the first place...)

Oh man, this is why I try not to think too deeply about this sort of shit, you get to a point and realize that nothing can ever be proven, your life is totally insignificant, you might not even exist and nothing is real.  Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
May 11, 2015, 02:43:54 PM
Islam is the most modern religion in many ways.
Sure, as long as you absolutely ignore EVERY OTHER FUCKING RELIGION that has been created since the sixth century. Scientology, anyone?

What is the metric by which you measure the degree of a modernity in religion? Is it how recently it was created, or the extent to which they believe in 'magic?' Scientology is more "modern" in the sense that it was created more recently, but I wouldn't consider their dogmatic beliefs any more modern than any other religion.
What I mean by modern is .... blah blah blah...


This is what I think of Islam :



Hindu and Muslim can never Unite, If that possible they would have join before 1947 partition, Its called Two nation theory.

Muslim Rule over the subcontinent more than 800 year, And then British came and Muslim rule was over, And British rule was started. FIRST THE Indian were Under the MUSLIM and then Under the BRITISH rule. They have no problem. Muslim has the problem because they are the ruler, and rulers are now treated as slaves.



Irfan, I am going to make an insult/Joke about you and your country please dont take it seriously & be a sport.

Seriously which school did your parents sent you that your brain is so thoroughly washed - with some form of detergent - that you are actually calling a British India Map the Muslim India map ?? Please get your facts right. Please read on..


Get your hands & feet together folks I see an Indo Pak war coming.

 There is no Hindu there is no Muslim its plain and simple INDIAN.

In the ancient times people lived near the now dried up vedic Saraswati they werent Hindu, they didnt have rules, they didnt follow any other civiliztions but were expert traders.

Then we were part of the Haryanks and in a broader picture the Mahajanapads, the greatest empire of these 'Janapads' = Realm of the People ? It was the Magadh empire.

Then came the persians and the greeks, who returned back to their abodes when they were faced with the sheer logistical challenges of a military conquest in this peninsula.

Then throughout the classical age India was the land of the people whose majority were Hindu, and by majority I would say above 90%

It was during this classical time when the Mauryas rose & fell and with them spread the wings of India all across the south of Asia.
It was during this time when the age old tradition of cultivating wheat and the expanding wheat - farm lands spreading to the East and the west at an exponential rate; that the name 'Sone Ki Chirya' (The Golden Bird) was coined to India.

It wasnt until the early half 5th century, when the White Huns lead by Toramana invaded the North of Pakistan through the Afghan mountains, that Islam or any form of islam was introduced here. It was a short lived reign but converted enough Hindus to other religions like Tengri & Manichaeism, it basically opened up the possibility of conversion of Hindus to other religion which wasnt possible until now..

Much later in the 7th Century when Sindh (today's pakistan) was conquered by an invading Umayyadi Meccan army followed by the death of Muhammad. But even then this was isolated to the Northern part of the peninsula. While the rest of India was entering the late classical era, during which India and it's cultural influence spread further south east down through Sumatra and Indonesia.

The small muslim kingdoms formed during the Umayyadi crusades in the north were part of the Meccan caliphate but it's rulers were too unequipped to invade the rest of India.

Lets face it, Islam is the best religion for barbarian central asian tribes, who were among the early adopters of the religion. They could eat almost anything, they could have many wives, they got rid of the need of idols, anyone anywhere could just curl up and claim to be in a 'holy place' - which is good if you are a nomad and have no fixed place to live. Multiple wives just increases the reproduction efficiency and most importantly they could take anything from anyone because according their 'trollbook' the whole world is theirs to pillage.

AND they've been so successful at this craft of pillaging that they eventually dared to get into the heart of Delhi (Old Delhi) by the beginning of the 13th century and eventually set up the muslim rule in India by converting the general population into their own religion of Islam. But this was for 300 years not 800 The french, the Spanish the Portuguese and the Dutch started arriving by the 16th century and by the 17th Century the Britts.

In a way the britts were the first political unity this peninsula had seen in a long time.

But we shouldnt forget one fact. Religion is stupid. It is fake, it is a form of mind control, a form of herding the sheep. That sheep is the common man, every religion had one agenda and no it was not 'peace', it was the illusion of peace through fear and subjugation.

Hindu, muslim, sikh, Buddhists, Jains, Tengris (lol) all are and were ALWAYS Indians.
They just started believing in different imaginary concepts at different points in time thats all.


I get it how pathetic the common man in Pakistan today must feel that the founder of their country was nothing more than a delusional hateful old man, yes I m talking about Jinnah. Its high time my ancestral brothers stopped living in another man's delusion.



But lets steer back to the topic and find out why atheism is by nature against theism.

Because the prefix "a" in this case means "not."  It's the inverse.
hero member
Activity: 1778
Merit: 764
www.V.systems
May 11, 2015, 02:02:12 PM
Islam is the most modern religion in many ways.
Sure, as long as you absolutely ignore EVERY OTHER FUCKING RELIGION that has been created since the sixth century. Scientology, anyone?

What is the metric by which you measure the degree of a modernity in religion? Is it how recently it was created, or the extent to which they believe in 'magic?' Scientology is more "modern" in the sense that it was created more recently, but I wouldn't consider their dogmatic beliefs any more modern than any other religion.
What I mean by modern is .... blah blah blah...


This is what I think of Islam :



Hindu and Muslim can never Unite, If that possible they would have join before 1947 partition, Its called Two nation theory.

Muslim Rule over the subcontinent more than 800 year, And then British came and Muslim rule was over, And British rule was started. FIRST THE Indian were Under the MUSLIM and then Under the BRITISH rule. They have no problem. Muslim has the problem because they are the ruler, and rulers are now treated as slaves.



Irfan, I am going to make an insult/Joke about you and your country please dont take it seriously & be a sport.

Seriously which school did your parents sent you that your brain is so thoroughly washed - with some form of detergent - that you are actually calling a British India Map the Muslim India map ?? Please get your facts right. Please read on..


Get your hands & feet together folks I see an Indo Pak war coming.

 There is no Hindu there is no Muslim its plain and simple INDIAN.

In the ancient times people lived near the now dried up vedic Saraswati they werent Hindu, they didnt have rules, they didnt follow any other civiliztions but were expert traders.

Then we were part of the Haryanks and in a broader picture the Mahajanapads, the greatest empire of these 'Janapads' = Realm of the People ? It was the Magadh empire.

Then came the persians and the greeks, who returned back to their abodes when they were faced with the sheer logistical challenges of a military conquest in this peninsula.

Then throughout the classical age India was the land of the people whose majority were Hindu, and by majority I would say above 90%

It was during this classical time when the Mauryas rose & fell and with them spread the wings of India all across the south of Asia.
It was during this time when the age old tradition of cultivating wheat and the expanding wheat - farm lands spreading to the East and the west at an exponential rate; that the name 'Sone Ki Chirya' (The Golden Bird) was coined to India.

It wasnt until the early half 5th century, when the White Huns lead by Toramana invaded the North of Pakistan through the Afghan mountains, that Islam or any form of islam was introduced here. It was a short lived reign but converted enough Hindus to other religions like Tengri & Manichaeism, it basically opened up the possibility of conversion of Hindus to other religion which wasnt possible until now..

Much later in the 7th Century when Sindh (today's pakistan) was conquered by an invading Umayyadi Meccan army followed by the death of Muhammad. But even then this was isolated to the Northern part of the peninsula. While the rest of India was entering the late classical era, during which India and it's cultural influence spread further south east down through Sumatra and Indonesia.

The small muslim kingdoms formed during the Umayyadi crusades in the north were part of the Meccan caliphate but it's rulers were too unequipped to invade the rest of India.

Lets face it, Islam is the best religion for barbarian central asian tribes, who were among the early adopters of the religion. They could eat almost anything, they could have many wives, they got rid of the need of idols, anyone anywhere could just curl up and claim to be in a 'holy place' - which is good if you are a nomad and have no fixed place to live. Multiple wives just increases the reproduction efficiency and most importantly they could take anything from anyone because according their 'trollbook' the whole world is theirs to pillage.

AND they've been so successful at this craft of pillaging that they eventually dared to get into the heart of Delhi (Old Delhi) by the beginning of the 13th century and eventually set up the muslim rule in India by converting the general population into their own religion of Islam. But this was for 300 years not 800 The french, the Spanish the Portuguese and the Dutch started arriving by the 16th century and by the 17th Century the Britts.

In a way the britts were the first political unity this peninsula had seen in a long time.

But we shouldnt forget one fact. Religion is stupid. It is fake, it is a form of mind control, a form of herding the sheep. That sheep is the common man, every religion had one agenda and no it was not 'peace', it was the illusion of peace through fear and subjugation.

Hindu, muslim, sikh, Buddhists, Jains, Tengris (lol) all are and were ALWAYS Indians.
They just started believing in different imaginary concepts at different points in time thats all.


I get it how pathetic the common man in Pakistan today must feel that the founder of their country was nothing more than a delusional hateful old man, yes I m talking about Jinnah. Its high time my ancestral brothers stopped living in another man's delusion.



But lets steer back to the topic and find out why atheism is by nature against theism.
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1147
The revolution will be monetized!
May 11, 2015, 01:42:16 PM
#99
Islam is the most modern religion in many ways.
Sure, as long as you absolutely ignore EVERY OTHER FUCKING RELIGION that has been created since the sixth century. Scientology, anyone?

What is the metric by which you measure the degree of a modernity in religion? Is it how recently it was created, or the extent to which they believe in 'magic?' Scientology is more "modern" in the sense that it was created more recently, but I wouldn't consider their dogmatic beliefs any more modern than any other religion.
What I mean by modern is in comparison with ancient religions. I also think of Christianity as a modern religion. Early Christianity, like Islam, brought everyone into direct communication with God. By contrast most religions in the ancient world had a priestly class of rulers who told you what God thought. The message of the Christ was that God is the Father of all people. Rich and poor are held to the same standard and no person could overrule God.

This is a direct response to the Roman empire that ruled over everyone. It is a compelling idea that "I" matter to God even as I am nothing to the empire. Eventually the empire had to adopt Christianity or be overrun by it. when they did they wrote the Bible as a way of blending Christianity with Roman laws and sensibilities. As time went on the old ways of having a ruling priestly class returned. This made Islam a strong competitor in the "dark age" after the fall of Rome. At this point all that was left of the empire was the church. Not withstanding the reformation, it is the roots of the church we have today in Rome.

Islam took it further and said there will be no popes or priests. To be a Muslim you need only Believe in the Shahadah (basically monotheism), pray 5 times a day, Fast for Ramadan, Share what you have with others less fortunate, and if you can afford it you are required to make a pilgrimage to Mecca.  Beyond that there is not much weight placed on old stories from the bible or rituals.

Now because these are just the ideas of men there is a lot of debate inside and outside of Islam. Some love ritual and tradition while others not so much. But this focus on the individual is modern for me. Even though I mean modern since the ancient world. Those religions were brimming with ritual and obedience to rulers, who were often the Gods themselves.

Something like Scientology is a new "religion" and an interesting mix of psudo-science, science fiction, tax sheltering, and finally the worship of space ghosts from planet Zenu. Something for everyone.  Cheesy

But it is just another mystical cult, more like the ancient ones IMO. 
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1115
★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!
May 11, 2015, 01:04:52 PM
#98
Islam is the most modern religion in many ways.
Sure, as long as you absolutely ignore EVERY OTHER FUCKING RELIGION that has been created since the sixth century. Scientology, anyone?

What is the metric by which you measure the degree of modernity in a religion? Is it how recently it was created, or the extent to which they believe in 'magic?' Scientology is more "modern" in the sense that it was created more recently, but I wouldn't consider their dogmatic beliefs any more modern than any other religion.
copper member
Activity: 1815
Merit: 1004
PredX - AI-Powered Prediction Market
May 11, 2015, 11:35:32 AM
#97
Can Any one tell me
Why Islam is fastest GROWING RELIGION?
10% of Europe will be Muslim in around 30 years?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/muslim-population-growth-christians-religion-pew
My best guess.
Islam is the most modern religion in many ways. In the last 2000 years there has been a shift toward more power for the individual. It has led to a spread of democracy and a movement away from dogmatic religion. Islam does not have priests, just people and God. Prior to the Romanization of Christianity it was also a liberation theocracy. I wonder if it was supplanted because of the addition of official state dogma by the Romans and the following kings of Europe.

Yeah May be this could be also in one the reasons:

Concerning to "The Almanac Book of Facts", the population increased 137% within the past decade and the Christianity increased 46%, while Islam increased 235%.

100,000 people per year in America alone, are converting to Islam. For every 1 male convert to Islam 4 females convert to Islam, Why?

1. The Bible Convicts Women as the original Sinners, (ie. Eve picking from the forbidden tree){Genesis 2:4-3:24}. The Koran Clarifies it was Adam Not Eve {Qur'an 7:19-25}
2. The Bible says "The Birth of a Daughter is a loss" {Ecclesiasticus 22:3}. The Qur'an says both are an Equal Blessing { Qur'an 42:49}
3. The Bible Forbids Women from Speaking in church {I Corinthians 14:34-35}. The Qur'an says Women Can argue with the Prophet {58:1}
4. In the Bible, divorced Women are Labeled as an Adulteress, while men are not {Matthew 5:31-32}. The Koran does Not have Biblical double standards { Qur'an 30:21}
5. In The Bible, Widows and Sisters do Not Inherit Any Property or Wealth, Only men do{Numbers 27:1-11}The Koran Abolished this male greediness { Qur'an 4:22} and God Protects All.
6. The Bible Allows Multiple Wives{I Kings 11:3} In The Koran, God limits the number to 4 only under certain situations (with the Wife's permission)and Prefers you Marry Only One Wife{ Qur'an 4:3} The Koran gives the Woman the Right to Choose who to Marry.
7. "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" {Deuteronomy 22:28-30} One must ask a simple question here, who is really punished, the man who raped the woman or the woman who was raped? According to the Bible, you have to spend the Rest of Your Life with the man who Raped You. The Prophet Muhammad Says {Volume 9, Book
8, 6 Number 101} Narrated by Aisha:" It is essential to have the consent of a virgin (for the marriage)". Would the Christian men Reading this prefer the Women they know to Be Christian or Muslim?

And more
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
May 11, 2015, 11:23:11 AM
#96
I pulled this from a combination of .edu and other credible sources.  It's set in the context of his commentary on the Problem of Induction.  My point in referencing his comments wasn't in any way to discuss his personal religious beliefs, which are irrelevant to the discussion, anyway.  Rather, it was simply to correct the poster's statements that it is irrational to believe in something without physical evidence.  Adhering to this point of view must also lead one to the conclusion that it is irrational to believe in the validity of scientific epistemology.

To reach a conclusion that "believing in 'this' god is irrational" requires a philosophical basis.  Because science is a mere philosophical subset, it isn't good enough to assume it has the final say.  We need to defer to Philosophy in a broader sense to determine whether there is a way to determine what is and what is not logically necessary.  If there is a philosophical basis by you can conclude God is logically impossible, or even that it impossible to know whether God exists, then you are free to make that conclusion.  However, the reverse seems to be true, i.e. Intelligent Design is a logical necessity for reality's existence.
I see. Could you please clearly state your stance towards the topic? I do not want to be mistaken. I concur; currently there is nothing that is good nor developed enough to have a final say in things.

I'm saying a few things:

1)  Debate about God's existence cannot be about whether there is or is not physical evidence for His existence, lest it be invalid.  In the same way we defer to broader Philosophy to explore and comment upon the assumptions of Science that fall outside the scope of Empiricism, so, too, we must also defer to broader Philosophy to explore and comment upon God, an entity that by common definition/assumption also falls outside the scope of Empiricism.

2) Hume's personal religious beliefs are irrelevant. However, he is correct about the limitations of inductive reasoning and scientific epistemology, specifically in his acknowledgment of its philosophical foundations.  The implications of his commentary are all-too-often shrugged off by empiricists as impractical of consideration.  This is a huge mistake.

3) Any person who claims it is silly to believe in God without physical evidence is a hypocrite if he also believes that scientific epistemology is valid.

4) There is a correct way to approach a debate about God's existence.  Specifically, the question is one of whether God is logically implicated, logically impossible, or if it is simply impossible to know whether such a thing exists.

5) I personally think that belief in God is rational because He is logically necessary.  Specifically, I believe God exists inasmuch as Intelligent Design is the necessary mechanism by which reality exists, and I believe Intelligent Design exists inasmuch as reality is demonstrably a mental construct.
legendary
Activity: 2240
Merit: 1254
Thread-puller extraordinaire
May 11, 2015, 10:46:37 AM
#95
your reason is too illogical, what do you mean by Brain washing? who did this brain washing?

Most Xtians are actually fairly open to the idea that they might be wrong, once exposed to the 'evil' that is objective reasoning and critical thinking. Muslims, however, are rarely found to even be willing to consider anything other than the fact that their particular brand of 'special' is absolutely and without doubt the 'One True Religion'(tm).

Their unwillingness to even accept when their dogma is successfully challenged is likely behind statistics that show fewer Islamic adherents losing their religion, when compared to other theists. This unwillingness requires a particularly high degree of willful ignorance, the kind that can only be achieved through conditioning a people by way of frequent regular prayer ritual.

Think of the Ultra-Orthodox Jews, the kind that bob rapidly backwards and forwards at the 'Wailing Wall' whilst reciting their magic words over and over again. That kind of conditioning is hard to shift, truly sticky brain-washing.

Islam is the most modern religion in many ways.
Sure, as long as you absolutely ignore EVERY OTHER FUCKING RELIGION that has been created since the sixth century. Scientology, anyone?

legendary
Activity: 2632
Merit: 1094
May 11, 2015, 10:41:20 AM
#94


Yeah, you seem to struggle to be able to comprehend basic reasoning, which isn't much of a surprise given you are a theist, but let me give you a little pointer, if good person does something evil, then he isn't a good person. Do you get it now?

@bold: What should I say now when you have said what I feel and what I was trying to say for such a long time?
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1147
The revolution will be monetized!
May 11, 2015, 10:39:13 AM
#93
Can Any one tell me
Why Islam is fastest GROWING RELIGION?
10% of Europe will be Muslim in around 30 years?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/muslim-population-growth-christians-religion-pew
My best guess.
Islam is the most modern religion in many ways. In the last 2000 years there has been a shift toward more power for the individual. It has led to a spread of democracy and a movement away from dogmatic religion. Islam does not have priests, just people and God. Prior to the Romanization of Christianity it was also a liberation theocracy. I wonder if it was supplanted because of the addition of official state dogma by the Romans and the following kings of Europe.
legendary
Activity: 3234
Merit: 1654
Enterapp Pre-Sale Live - bit.ly/3UrMCWI
May 11, 2015, 10:38:13 AM
#92
Can Any one tell me
Why Islam is fastest GROWING RELIGION?
10% of Europe will be Muslim in around 30 years?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/muslim-population-growth-christians-religion-pew

I'll take this one!

Ummm . . . is it because the brain-washing symbolic rituals are carried out far more intensely and regularly than with any other religion?

BTW, if 10% of the EU will be Muslim in 30 years, 70% will be atheists. It's called education.


your reason is too illogical, what do you mean by Brain washing? who did this brain washing?
Jump to: