If they hate religion, they hate themselves too because Atheists are believers of Atheism, a religion.
Maybe the right question should be, "Why do Atheists hate Christ?"
Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 55. (Read 901342 times)
The only problem is that there is no method to confirm anything a philosopher might say, as far as I know, which means we would have to trust them and they could be wrong all the time.
Ironically you can say the same thing about any religion.
...Especially the religion of atheism.
Philosophy is often trial and error, same as science.
Since religion is how you live, experience eliminates some of the trial and error of life in the future.
The only problem is that there is no method to confirm anything a philosopher might say, as far as I know, which means we would have to trust them and they could be wrong all the time.
Ironically you can say the same thing about any religion.
Philosophy is not science and as such it is not a good field for exploring and learning about the universe.
Take care.
This is an excellent description of philosophy.
The only problem is that there is no method to confirm anything a philosopher might say, as far as I know, which means we would have to trust them and they could be wrong all the time.
Philosophy is not science and as such it is not a good field for exploring and learning about the universe.
Take care.
This is an excellent description of philosophy.
I don't think that atheists are religion haters, they just dont agreea with the fact of a supreme beeing that made everything and that watch's allover, i think its mostly like see and believe for atheists but they do believe in God, my opinion tho, i might be wrong !! I think most of us are atheists and we dont realize ( most of us are yeah i believe in God and im afraid ) but in these days no one actualy is like an adept or religion
You are close. I haven't been saying it. I have been waiting for atheists to say it. Here it is. Like atheists don't have the strength to believe that God doesn't exist, even so theists don't really have the strength to believe that God exists. The difference is that God strengthens the faith of the theists so that they believe, but God denies the strength of the atheists so that they can't believe against Him. The best the atheists can do is lie and say that they are atheists.
If that were true, I wouldn't be an atheist now because I was a believer and god would have strengthened my faith in him but he didn't.
I don't think that atheists are religion haters, they just dont agreea with the fact of a supreme beeing that made everything and that watch's allover, i think its mostly like see and believe for atheists but they do believe in God, my opinion tho, i might be wrong !! I think most of us are atheists and we dont realize ( most of us are yeah i believe in God and im afraid ) but in these days no one actualy is like an adept or religion
You are close. I haven't been saying it. I have been waiting for atheists to say it. Here it is. Like atheists don't have the strength to believe that God doesn't exist, even so theists don't really have the strength to believe that God exists. The difference is that God strengthens the faith of the theists so that they believe, but God denies the strength of the atheists so that they can't believe against Him. The best the atheists can do is lie and say that they are atheists.
I don't think that atheists are religion haters, they just dont agreea with the fact of a supreme beeing that made everything and that watch's allover, i think its mostly like see and believe for atheists but they do believe in God, my opinion tho, i might be wrong !! I think most of us are atheists and we dont realize ( most of us are yeah i believe in God and im afraid ) but in these days no one actualy is like an adept or religion
I think religion has one (original) use case: "To control how people think and behave".
But in today's Internet Age, religions have too much competition from political, all the *-isms, and anti-* movements.
The benefits of religious brainwashing (law abiding citizens) are overshadowed by all the negatives (regressive moral values,
outdated social structures and rejection of the scientific method as an efficient way to learn how the world works).
The the "use case" of religion is to rectify humanity which includes rectifying how people think and behave.
Personally I will keep my "regressive moral values", and my "outdated social structures".
If teenagers were taught about science, evolution and religion at the same time without any external influence from their family, do you they would believe in talking snakes, magic and all sorts of miracles or science? I think they would for sure pick science, the only reason that we have so many religious people around the world is indoctrination from very early age.
The thing you are posting could be classified as the religion of ignorant atheism vs. the religion of observed history.
Claimed observed history you mean? There are many claims of that, that's why we have thousands of religions, they all claim they are the real one and what they observed is the truth. You have a book which says people saw god, what is the evidence that they indeed saw god?
Again, the strong tradition of Israel is proof of their accuracy in recording their eye witness history.
No it isn't. Every claim needs its own evidence. If someone predicts something and it turns out to be true, it doesn't mean everything he says it's true. Every claim has to be proved. Again you have no proof.
But when you have a nation of people who are known for respecting their genealogy lines so extremely well, that they write down their lines to keep their nation pure for God, the whole nation is proof for the things they write down. such a nation is Israel. On top of that, their history is evidence that the things that they wrote were predictions of what would happen to them if they acted this way or that. Such is great proof.
Just because you haven't studied it or don't want to study it, shows that you are simply picking and choosing the religion you want to follow... the religion of God, or the religion of no God.
Yes, but you should still not choose believing in supernatural. Otherwise you are just being delusional.
Choosing to believe the supernatural is just like choosing to NOT believe it. Why? Because we have no clue about how the universe started, scientifically. We don't know that it started without the supernatural.
Before Hawking died, he made a final observation about Big Bang. He essentially said that whatever caused it was something that was outside of anything we can understand by physical observation of the universe. He didn't say the word supernatural. But that is exactly what he was implying. Google "Hawking's final big bang observation."
Since we are so backward, presently, regarding science, we don't know that the supernatural doesn't exist all around us all the time, right now.
We already have a scientific method that allows us to discover objective truths.
Indeed the scientific method is a wonderful thing. What you fail to appreciate, however, is that the scientific method also rests upon unprovable assumptions.
Its discoveries are not absolute but conditional truths and dependent the fundamental a priori assumptions of science.
What are these assumptions? I highlighted several of them in a recent post.
Metaphysical Foundation of Science:
✧ The external world is real and knowable.
✧ Nature itself is not divine. It is an object worthy of study, not worship.
✧ The universe is orderly. There is uniformity in nature that allows us to observe past phenomena and to understand and predict future occurrences.
✧ Our minds and senses are capable of accurately observing and understanding the world.
These assumed truths are so deeply ingrained in us now we have difficulty even recognizing them as assumptions but they are necessary for science to exist.
If you don't believe the assumptions science becomes impossible for you. The progress and maintenance of scientific achievement requires that these assumptions be accepted and propagated at least by an educated elite.
The same situation applies to the apriori Truth of God which rests at the foundation of western culture. Undermine the assumption and the whole society starts to wobble.
This is what Nietzsche foresaw when he announced "God is dead" in 1882. Nietzsche predicted drastic consequences as a result. He predicted millions would die in the 20th century in wars of extremist ideologies. Peterson describes these ideologies as parasites that act on a damaged religious substructure.
Nietzsche also predicted that it would not be until the 21st century that we would be forced to acknowledge the crisis of nihilism. These predictions given in 1882 are an intellectual tour de force.
Believing blindly without contemplation still works for some but that blanket of protection is gradually being pulled away. Going forward it will increasingly be necessary to fully define oneself down to your core metaphysical truths. Unless you can look into the abyss of nihilism and reject it with certainty the abyss will sooner or later pull you in.
The rest of your comments indicate to me that you simply do not follow my arguments so I see little point in proceeding much further.
I challenge your position as ultimately illogical and untrue. You have leveled the same charge at me. I have laid out my logic and reasoning for you in some detail and you have forcefully stated your beliefs.
At this point we will have to let the readers of this thread decide for themselves.
You are right. I do not share the same "metaphysical, assumed truths" you listed above. Didn't the universe start with an explosion? - We don't know that the universe started with an explosion. No proof for it. No scientific proof for it. All the evidence can be applied to other things better, just like evolution evidence can be applied to other things better than it can be applied to evolution.
No offence, but I think you are losing your mind injecting these metaphysical "truths" into your logic. - Metaphysics is simply way beyond us, scientifically, at present. There is science that is examining it and getting some answers.
Philosophy is not science and as such it is not a good field for exploring and learning about the universe. - Philosophy often is the examination of the sciences that are way beyond what we scientifically know at present. We "feel" some of the greater and deeper science. Philosophy tries to examine it without our science, because our science is so far behind, but we want answers anyway, so we philosophize.
Take care.
We already have a scientific method that allows us to discover objective truths.
Indeed the scientific method is a wonderful thing. What you fail to appreciate, however, is that the scientific method also rests upon unprovable assumptions.
Its discoveries are not objective truth but conditional truth and dependent on the fundamental a priori assumptions of science.
What are these assumptions? I highlighted several of them in a recent post.
Metaphysical Foundation of Science:
✧ The external world is real and knowable.
✧ Nature itself is not divine. It is an object worthy of study, not worship.
✧ The universe is orderly. There is uniformity in nature that allows us to observe past phenomena and to understand and predict future occurrences.
✧ Our minds and senses are capable of accurately observing and understanding the world.
These assumed truths are so deeply ingrained in us now we have difficulty even recognizing them as assumptions but they are necessary for science to exist.
If you don't believe the assumptions science becomes impossible for you. The progress and maintenance of scientific achievement requires that these assumptions be accepted and propagated at least by an educated elite.
The same situation applies to the apriori Truth of God which rests at the foundation of western culture. Undermine the assumption and the whole society starts to wobble.
This is what Nietzsche foresaw when he announced "God is dead" in 1882. Nietzsche predicted drastic consequences as a result. He predicted millions would die in the 20th century in wars of extremist ideologies. Peterson describes these ideologies as parasites that act on a damaged religious substructure.
Nietzsche also predicted that it would not be until the 21st century that we would be forced to acknowledge the crisis of nihilism. These predictions given in 1882 are an intellectual tour de force.
Believing blindly without contemplation still works for some but that blanket of protection is gradually being pulled away. Going forward it will increasingly be necessary to fully define oneself down to your core metaphysical truths. Unless you can look into the abyss of nihilism and reject it with certainty the abyss will sooner or later pull you in.
The rest of your comments indicate to me that you simply do not follow my arguments so I see little point in proceeding much further.
I challenge your position as ultimately illogical and untrue. You have leveled the same charge at me. I have laid out my logic and reasoning for you in some detail and you have forcefully stated your beliefs.
At this point we will have to let the readers of this thread decide for themselves.
Science works, your metaphysical bullshit pseudo science doesn't. Science keeps bringing results meanwhile religion does nothing. Ok, sometimes they try to disrupt science like with stem cells.
Actually, you are simply showing the fact that science is currently so retarded that it can't even calculate or understand the metaphysical... at least not very well. It also shows that you are not keeping up wioth metaphysical science possibly at all.
The main argument common to various directions of atheism is that they are guided by reason and think independently, taking decisions on worldview issues. As far as this argument is fair, the question is separate, because, of course, there are also atheists, who are more pragmatic than the average believer, and self-thinking believers.
Another common argument in favor of atheism is religious wars. Ie, they say, atheism does not lead to religious wars as a religion. And much more ...
Another common argument in favor of atheism is religious wars. Ie, they say, atheism does not lead to religious wars as a religion. And much more ...
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Temujin, many others...
Of course these guys looked at formal religion. But most (if not all) of them set both theism and non-theism formal religion aside for war and slaughter of many millions. So, the religion of informal (and possibly formal) atheism is has killed way more than the formal religions of theism and non-theism.
Again with this shit? You and the guy who wrote the article are using the incompleteness theorem wrong. I already discussed this with you...
We indeed did debate this topic. We reduced the argument down to its very basic assumptions which you were unable to refute. You lost that debate though your ideology will likely never allow you to see that.
If you need to review here is a good place to look. My own argument is less ambitious then that of Perry Marshall and depends only on the first two assumptions.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24814610
Science works, your metaphysical bullshit pseudo science doesn't. Science keeps bringing results meanwhile religion does nothing. Ok, sometimes they try to disrupt science like with stem cells.
I replied to this here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.35917300
The main argument common to various directions of atheism is that they are guided by reason and think independently, taking decisions on worldview issues. As far as this argument is fair, the question is separate, because, of course, there are also atheists, who are more pragmatic than the average believer, and self-thinking believers.
Another common argument in favor of atheism is religious wars. Ie, they say, atheism does not lead to religious wars as a religion. And much more ...
Another common argument in favor of atheism is religious wars. Ie, they say, atheism does not lead to religious wars as a religion. And much more ...
We already have a scientific method that allows us to discover objective truths.
Indeed the scientific method is a wonderful thing. What you fail to appreciate, however, is that the scientific method also rests upon unprovable assumptions.
Its discoveries are not objective truth but conditional truth and dependent on the fundamental a priori assumptions of science.
What are these assumptions? I highlighted several of them in a recent post.
Metaphysical Foundation of Science:
✧ The external world is real and knowable.
✧ Nature itself is not divine. It is an object worthy of study, not worship.
✧ The universe is orderly. There is uniformity in nature that allows us to observe past phenomena and to understand and predict future occurrences.
✧ Our minds and senses are capable of accurately observing and understanding the world.
These assumed truths are so deeply ingrained in us now we have difficulty even recognizing them as assumptions but they are necessary for science to exist.
If you don't believe the assumptions science becomes impossible for you. The progress and maintenance of scientific achievement requires that these assumptions be accepted and propagated at least by an educated elite.
The same situation applies to the apriori Truth of God which rests at the foundation of western culture. Undermine the assumption and the whole society starts to wobble.
This is what Nietzsche foresaw when he announced "God is dead" in 1882. Nietzsche predicted drastic consequences as a result. He predicted millions would die in the 20th century in wars of extremist ideologies. Peterson describes these ideologies as parasites that act on a damaged religious substructure.
Nietzsche also predicted that it would not be until the 21st century that we would be forced to acknowledge the crisis of nihilism. These predictions given in 1882 are an intellectual tour de force.
Believing blindly without contemplation still works for some but that blanket of protection is gradually being pulled away. Going forward it will increasingly be necessary to fully define oneself down to your core metaphysical truths. Unless you can look into the abyss of nihilism and reject it with certainty the abyss will sooner or later pull you in.
The rest of your comments indicate to me that you simply do not follow my arguments so I see little point in proceeding much further.
I challenge your position as ultimately illogical and untrue. You have leveled the same charge at me. I have laid out my logic and reasoning for you in some detail and you have forcefully stated your beliefs.
At this point we will have to let the readers of this thread decide for themselves.
Science works, your metaphysical bullshit pseudo science doesn't. Science keeps bringing results meanwhile religion does nothing. Ok, sometimes they try to disrupt science like with stem cells.
Metaphysical Foundation of Science:
✧ The external world is real and knowable.
You are right. I do not share the same "metaphysical, assumed truths" you listed above.
Indeed if you deny the existence of objective truth altogether. The first of the metaphysical assumption of science above then you are in the orbit of a very different belief system.
Definition of Nihilism
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nihilism
Quote
A : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
B : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
B : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
I cannot disprove nihilism only point the the various reasons it is a poor choice.
If you have time I recommend the following essay on this topic by Bruce Charlton.
Metaphysical Attitudes
Take Care
We already have a scientific method that allows us to discover objective truths.
Indeed the scientific method is a wonderful thing. What you fail to appreciate, however, is that the scientific method also rests upon unprovable assumptions.
Its discoveries are not objective truth but conditional truth and dependent on the fundamental a priori assumptions of science.
What are these assumptions? I highlighted several of them in a recent post.
Metaphysical Foundation of Science:
✧ The external world is real and knowable.
✧ Nature itself is not divine. It is an object worthy of study, not worship.
✧ The universe is orderly. There is uniformity in nature that allows us to observe past phenomena and to understand and predict future occurrences.
✧ Our minds and senses are capable of accurately observing and understanding the world.
These assumed truths are so deeply ingrained in us now we have difficulty even recognizing them as assumptions but they are necessary for science to exist.
If you don't believe the assumptions science becomes impossible for you. The progress and maintenance of scientific achievement requires that these assumptions be accepted and propagated at least by an educated elite.
The same situation applies to the apriori Truth of God which rests at the foundation of western culture. Undermine the assumption and the whole society starts to wobble.
This is what Nietzsche foresaw when he announced "God is dead" in 1882. Nietzsche predicted drastic consequences as a result. He predicted millions would die in the 20th century in wars of extremist ideologies. Peterson describes these ideologies as parasites that act on a damaged religious substructure.
Nietzsche also predicted that it would not be until the 21st century that we would be forced to acknowledge the crisis of nihilism. These predictions given in 1882 are an intellectual tour de force.
Believing blindly without contemplation still works for some but that blanket of protection is gradually being pulled away. Going forward it will increasingly be necessary to fully define oneself down to your core metaphysical truths. Unless you can look into the abyss of nihilism and reject it with certainty the abyss will sooner or later pull you in.
The rest of your comments indicate to me that you simply do not follow my arguments so I see little point in proceeding much further.
I challenge your position as ultimately illogical and untrue. You have leveled the same charge at me. I have laid out my logic and reasoning for you in some detail and you have forcefully stated your beliefs.
At this point we will have to let the readers of this thread decide for themselves.
Just because our universe is incomplete (not all truths can be proven mathematically)... is not a proof of God. I think people jump the gun on the incompleteness theorem.
Same argument as because the universe was created, and we don't know how and why it was created, there must be something out there that created it.
You are projecting your desires (of filling in the gaps in knowledge) on the outcome of your deduction. Don't feel bad, Newton did it, and many other smart people after him. Still the reasoning is wrong, regardless of who proclaims it.
I agree with you on the fundamentalism. You don't need religion for that.
Same argument as because the universe was created, and we don't know how and why it was created, there must be something out there that created it.
You are projecting your desires (of filling in the gaps in knowledge) on the outcome of your deduction. Don't feel bad, Newton did it, and many other smart people after him. Still the reasoning is wrong, regardless of who proclaims it.
I agree with you on the fundamentalism. You don't need religion for that.
I never claimed to prove God. The incompleteness theorem which is part #1 of my Empiric Argument for God is not proof of God.
Instead it is proof that there are things in this universe that can never be proven yet are true. From this fact we must conclude that our inability to prove a truth is not by itself sufficient grounds not accept it. Ultimately all knowledge traces back to assumed axioms.
How then do we determine if an unprovable axiom is true?
Is God such an axiom True yet unprovable?
To answer these questions we must develop a coherent theory of truth. That is part #2 of my argument.
I don't claim to have a proof of God. Personally I think that is impossible. What I have shown is that it is logical to believe in God even if we cannot now or ever prove his existence.
You state that I am projecting my desires (filling in the gaps in my knowledge) with the outcome of my deduction. To this charge I will give an honest answer.
That is a logical conclusion to draw only IF one adopts an entirely different worldview then I and ASSUME other "truths".
For no matter what worldview you use to launch your critique you are guilty of the same projection. At the bottom of your worldview whatever that may be lies at least one and possibly many "truths" that at best cannot be proven and at worst are false and self-contradictory.
Faith cannot be avoided. We can deny we have it and pretend it does not exist but only at the cost of deluding ourselves. In the worst case situation we are not even consciously aware of our a priori truths. Then we are blind to our own beliefs.
At the end of the day we choose who we are.
Again with this shit? You and the guy who wrote the article are using the incompleteness theorem wrong. I already discussed this with you, you can't apply the theorem to anything you like. There is even a book written specifically talking about how people are applying the theorem in the wrong ways.
''Real world situations usually display an amazing degree of complexity, unlike basic statements of arithmetic.
Unfortunately, most attempts to extend Gödel's theorems outside of math end up mired in these types of problems. Because these theorems were developed particular to say something about number theory (more broadly, formal systems)''
''Instead it is proof that there are things in this universe that can never be proven yet are true'' It is not proof of that either.
Just because our universe is incomplete (not all truths can be proven mathematically)... is not a proof of God. I think people jump the gun on the incompleteness theorem.
Same argument as because the universe was created, and we don't know how and why it was created, there must be something out there that created it.
You are projecting your desires (of filling in the gaps in knowledge) on the outcome of your deduction. Don't feel bad, Newton did it, and many other smart people after him. Still the reasoning is wrong, regardless of who proclaims it.
I agree with you on the fundamentalism. You don't need religion for that.
Same argument as because the universe was created, and we don't know how and why it was created, there must be something out there that created it.
You are projecting your desires (of filling in the gaps in knowledge) on the outcome of your deduction. Don't feel bad, Newton did it, and many other smart people after him. Still the reasoning is wrong, regardless of who proclaims it.
I agree with you on the fundamentalism. You don't need religion for that.
I never claimed to prove God. The incompleteness theorem which is part #1 of my Empiric Argument for God is not proof of God.
Instead it is proof that there are things in this universe that can never be proven yet are true. From this fact we must conclude that our inability to prove a truth is not by itself sufficient grounds not accept it. Ultimately all knowledge traces back to assumed axioms.
How then do we determine if an unprovable axiom is true?
Is God such an axiom True yet unprovable?
To answer these questions we must develop a coherent theory of truth. That is part #2 of my argument.
I don't claim to have a proof of God. Personally I think that is impossible. What I have shown is that it is logical to believe in God even if we cannot now or ever prove his existence.
You state that I am projecting my desires (filling in the gaps in my knowledge) with the outcome of my deduction. To this charge I will give an honest answer.
That is a logical conclusion to draw only IF one adopts an entirely different worldview then I and ASSUME other "truths".
For no matter what worldview you use to launch your critique you are guilty of the same projection. At the bottom of your worldview whatever that may be lies at least one and possibly many "truths" that at best cannot be proven and at worst are false and self-contradictory.
Faith cannot be avoided. We can deny we have it and pretend it does not exist but only at the cost of deluding ourselves. In the worst case situation we are not even consciously aware of our a priori truths. Then we are blind to our own beliefs.
At the end of the day we choose who we are.
Jump to: