Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 56. (Read 901357 times)

I can assure you I have not been indoctrinated. I started from a position of agnosticism and build up my worldview step by step starting from a deep examination of my basic assertions. My conclusions do not come from dogma but logical deduction. I have also outlined my beliefs and the logic I used to reach them in some detail. See: Empiric Argument for God.

I am not a member of any religious denomination. For the past 20 years I was a strong agnostic abandoning that position only after great consideration once I realized it was untenable.

I understand your fear of fundamentalism. It is valid and has merit. What you seem to be missing is the fact that fundamentalist extremism has nothing to do with God. Extreme fundamentalism follows from the false human assertion that my ideology represents a perfect understanding of truth and all differing ideologies are therefore worthy only of suppression and extermination.

The Nazi's were darwinian fundamentalist the Communist utopian fundamentalist. The world today is full of fundamentalist of all stripes some associated with traditional organized religions others associated with secular causes. Yes fundamentalism can be very dangerous but if you think it is an organized religion problem you are mistaken. Extreme fundamentalism is a widespread human problem and taking God out of the equation simply makes the problem worse.

You argue that rejection of God is the path forward. My response is that you are utterly failing to appreciate the dire hazards of that road. Don't take my word for it. Learn from Fredrick Nietzsche a fellow atheist and one of the most devastating critics of institution Christianity that ever lived.

See:
Nietzsche and Christianity
and
Nietzsche and Nihilism

Again your view here simply does not reflect an accurate grasp of history. Just look at the history the 20th century. The leading ideological cause of death was not religion but Communism. Fascism did it best to take the top spot but ultimately it only gets a participation trophy.

Communism Killed 94M in 20th Century, Feels Need to Kill Again
https://reason.com/blog/2013/03/13/communism-killed-94m-in-20th-century

A secular democracy is a good system if and only if the individuals who participate are by and large moral and virtuous. If they are not it slowly degenerates into the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of whoever bribes/coerces the majority.

A belief in God among the populace is the linchpin that secures the morality of the people and thus the freedom and success of the secular democracy.

Where the arguments against religious faith usually go astray is that they attempt to introduce an arbitrary and illogical division between faith in religion and faith in other things. They then attempt to argue against religion while totally ignoring "other faith".

Humans don't live in a vacuum. We cannot like a computer shut ourselves off and stop. We are all ongoing and actively developing entities. Rejecting a faith is never a simple matter of removing a set of beliefs. It is ALWAYS a replacement of one religion with another or if you prefer a replacement of one set of core beliefs with another. These new beliefs whatever they may be are also ultimately just another faith. The logical result of gutting ones foundational principles without accepting a replacement ideology is incoherence and self-contradiction.

If you believe I am biased and reject this conclusion maybe you will give it more weight when coming from others with more historical clout.


I suspect most Amish women would by and large be quite dismissive of your view of them as work slaves. From everything I have read the Amish live simple but ultimately happy lives. The Amish are also not slaves or under coercion they are free to leave their faith at any time. Some leave about 5-10% most choose to stay.

Why Amish Kids Are Happier than Yours
http://time.com/3687995/why-amish-kids-are-happier-than-yours/



In this we agree

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.

Those are certainly interesting passages. However, it is a mistake to look at them or try to understand them in isolation. For any belief system to be true it must be true in it's entirety.

I talked about this in my recent post on The Coherence Theory of Truth

You cite Corinthians so we are discussing Christianity. The task of the Christian philosopher is to understand and interpret passages such as the ones you highlight without invalidating other parts of the Bible. They must be understood not in isolation but within the the larger framework that includes things like Matthew 22:36-40 which according to the Bible is the supreme overarching truth from which others are derived.

The typical lazy reply to this is that it cannot be done, that the text is contradictory and cannot be integrated into a coherent philosophy of life. I think that is the simpletons answer one that springs from a poor grasp of human nature and human history.

You fear God is a slippery slope to fundamentalism. I disagree and would argue history proves you wrong.

My fear is different then yours. I fear that the road ahead without God leads inevitably to tyranny. I highlighted my reasons for this in theymos's recent thread on Anacyclosis
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/anacyclosis-cycles-of-societygovernment-3341237

Again, the strong tradition of Israel is proof of their accuracy in recording their eye witness history.

The only reason we know some texts in the bible are immoral and wrong is because we have indeed evolved as a society. That's also why a lot of religious preachers now try to defend why the bible includes slavery for example just like they need to make up shit in order to say that the bible does not say the earth is flat when it does indeed suggest it.

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?

The thing you are posting could be classified as the religion of ignorant atheism vs. the religion of observed history.

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.

Apparently Richard Dawkins picked out a former Jewish Settler who has difficulty controlling his anger and converted from Judaism to fundamentalist Islam. I have difficulty imagining an easier setting to advance his particular ideology.

What is more interesting is the fact that you equate my beliefs with those of fundamentalist Islam. My statement was in support of traditional morals and social structures.

I freely admit that I reject the nihilistic idea that morals are arbitrary. I also challenge attempts to redefine reality such as the claim that biological sex is irrelevant and gender entirely a social construct.

Just so we are clear are you claiming that these positions make me equivalent to a follower of radical Islam? Or is it your position that anyone who believes in God is a dangerous fundamentalist?  

Stop tailing my topics with all your shit posts.

Pretty oldschool equipment you got there...I would not even go to the moon with that

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".

Some theists think it is extremely dangerous even foolhardy to remove God from public life.

A recent case in the UK highlights this well.

Alfie Evans Foreshadows a Dark American Future
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/alfie-evans-case-americas-future/

Of course atheists like religion. If they didn't, they wouldn't be atheists. After all, atheism is a religion, by definition. Look it up in complete dictionaries and encyclopedias.

You in your godness are one of the weakest of the gods, because you don't even understand the God of the universe who is ONE, over all other gods.

It is not that atheists do not like religion, it is that atheists do not like it when the religious tell them how to live their lives, or when theists imply that they are better people because of their beliefs: the idea, for example, that faith is a virtue of itself.

Nowadays, in the West, the theists who do these things are a minority - but still quite numerous. The argument about gay marriage, for example: theists saying that other people could not marry because of the theists rules. Wanting theologically inspired mottoes on civil institutions such as courts and money. Appealing to God in public ceremonies.

You are exceptionally blessed. Not only has God "appeared" to you, but He has allowed me to explain His appearance to you:
1. The machine nature of the universe - machines have makers;
2. Cause and effect + entropy + complexity;
3. The fact that you are able to set yourself up as god by making all kinds of claims that you know you don't have any validation for.

As Robert Heinlein wrote in Stranger in a Strange Land, "Thou art god." But God is also Himself, stating to us in the Bible through Jesus, "You are gods to whom the word of God comes."

If you won't accept the blessing of God's appearance to you after all the explanation I have given, your destruction will be far worse than someone else who hasn't had the explanation, and won't accept.

If he appears to me, he is not ''forcing'' me to believe in him, that doesn't take away my free will at all mate. He could easily just show himself to everyone and we would still have free will.