Why do people hate religion? (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

The one thing that's more annoying than the religious christians are the anti-religious people, they dont notice it by they try to impose their beliefs more forcefully than the average christian, and have an illogical overt hatred of christianity because they percieve it to be oppressive (Islam on the other hand is fine ofcourse)

Well 'anti-religious' people are a small minority trying to make their mark in a world that's heavily stacked against them. As for the christianity/islam thing... I know of very few atheists that will praise islam over christianity.

most of the stuff these so called science-adhering anti-religious people show as evidence for their beliefs is no more believable than the christian variations

You've said something along those lines in the 'Does God Exist?' thread twice, I've answered you quite well imho. You just ignore it though like you ignore pretty much all flak you can't handle.

the difference is that the anti-religionites actually pretend theirs is.

Well it is. Simplistically it's like believing in santa or not believing in santa, I'd submit that not believing is the wiser choice.

I have yet to be questioned on my religion by any christian, pleanty of atheists have done it however

That's because you tote the Fundamentalist Christian line almost the whole way. It's easy to imagine you're a fundamentalist christian, however since you say you are not, my guess is you're more likely someone who is still a theist, most likely with heavy influence from judae-christian concepts.

I think everyone should keep their stupid beliefs to themselves, starting with the muslims, then atheists, then christians (in that order).

That's nice, but it doesn't work that way. Even if people don't mention their beliefs and put on a guise of being secular, their beliefs still affect the way they act and the wider society.

Why dont people hate aethism, over religion?

Because atheism is merely non-belief in God... Nothing else really comes along with it, all sorts of different people have been atheists at one point or another. There are no 'precepts' of atheism for people to even attempt to follow. By the way, your question is also wrong from the beginning if you're trying to suggest that people DON'T hate atheism. Atheists are probably the most hated 'religious' grouping in the world... as far as any groups go, atheists are probably up there with nazis.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/amer_intol.htm

check it out.

 

[otay]

The lone gunman who opened fire on Western tourists in Jordan calmly approached them from behind before yelling God is Great in Arabic and sinking bullets into their bodies.

Go religion!

 

[ur_inner_child]

i ask this question again
this time someone respond with a good answer
Why dont people hate aethism, over religion?

after all, the majority of killings/deaths throughout history have been caused by aethist.
look at hitler, stalin, the chinese cultural revolution.
clearly aethism has been the product of more evil than religion.

But they do. What is your point?

 

[bshoc]

Well 'anti-religious' people are a small minority trying to make their mark in a world that's heavily stacked against them. As for the christianity/islam thing... I know of very few atheists that will praise islam over christianity.

"Small minority"? Try 30% of the population. In the nordic countries its something like 70%. Minority my ass. And I know of a few atheists who have converted to islam.

You've said something along those lines in the 'Does God Exist?' thread twice, I've answered you quite well imho. You just ignore it though like you ignore pretty much all flak you can't handle.

You're claiming to have the answer to something that has not and probably will never be proven - claiming to know the existance of a god or the origin of life is arrogance and ignorance at its highest degree, ofcourse I'm going to ignore you.

Am I one of the few people who actually has enough honesty to say "I dont know" ..

Well it is. Simplistically it's like believing in santa or not believing in santa, I'd submit that not believing is the wiser choice.

Ah but you see we know exactly how santa came about, we almost have a recorded history of it - things like life or god is an entirely different prospect as neither can be verified.

That's because you tote the Fundamentalist Christian line almost the whole way. It's easy to imagine you're a fundamentalist christian, however since you say you are not, my guess is you're more likely someone who is still a theist, most likely with heavy influence from judae-christian concepts.

You must be joking, just becuase I dont tow the anti-religious, lefty progressive crap suddenly means I'm a religious theist? I've already declared I'm not part of any religion - saying "I don't know" isn't the same as saying that there is or isnt a god, or that evolution is or isn't real, or that the big bang did or did not happen - notice you're the one with the illogically concieved ideas - you're saying the same thing (content aside) that any fundie christian would say.

That's nice, but it doesn't work that way. Even if people don't mention their beliefs and put on a guise of being secular, their beliefs still affect the way they act and the wider society.

Who ever said anything about a guise? Secularity separation is stupid anyway, why separate a government from a majority of its people? How do you think my line of "I don't know" impacts of wider society? :rofl:

 

[runtlocks]

1. It's irrational.

2. It causes widespread detrimental conflict.

3. It destroys the potential for self-actualisation in the only likely life we have and inhibits people from living their life properly by placing emphasis on the "next" (non-existent) life.

:mad1: Ohh please.

I'm not a religious person, but please.

Widespread detrimental conflict? Fair enough, but why is it that people always concentrate on these issues? What about the state of social welfare here in Australia, the Salvo's, the Anglicares?

What people want to believe and practise in relation of self-actualisation really is none of your business, why not let them believe what they want to? People find solace in religion, through reflection and prayer, isn't that kind of self-improvement valid for ya?

 

[The Logical One]

What? I don't know what you're saying, but I do know that most religions that I've encountered that have an afterlife assert you would have consciousness in this afterlife.

Define consciousness.

Err... yes they must have come to exist.

Yes, they must have come to exist. Therefore logically, matter which is 'governed' by these Laws, existed after they existed. (do you see the logic of that?)

No we don't. There's no proof that these 'laws' came about due to other laws or any such nonsense Sam.

How do you propose that the laws which govern the universe did come about? They all just came to be after an explosion (which involves energy) which predates the laws? That's preposterous.

It is just as possible that they all came into existance at the same time.

It's impossible that all these laws have come into existance at the same time. It would be like suggesting 'the world was created in 7 days', it's impossible.

No, those aren't the only two options. Either the creator is not flawless, or the creator has flaws, or the creator is flawless and creates flaws to test people or the creator is not flawless and creates flaws to test.

Impossible. If the creator is not flawless, then it is flawed. Therefore it is not omniscient, it creates because it is bound. Therefore it Creates because it must create.

We understand time quite well.. there's nothing supernatural about it or mystical.

No, we don't understand time.
Time in this day and age is measure by human beings by the 'time it takes for the earth to orbit the sun once' this is not accurate for the time eons ago where this process did not exist. Time is inconsistant, the time it would take for this process to take place eons ago is different then now. Do you understand this? The definition of what 'time is' is not definate. Using the Hartle-Hawking(stephen) model we can infer that time is finate, yet the extent of this is disputed. Time varies as the entropy suggests (maxwell)

By contrast, all physical processes occurring at the microscopic level, such as mechanics, do not pick out an arrow of time. Going forward in time, we might see an atom moving to the left, whereas going backward in time, we would see the same atom moving to the right; the behavior of the atom is not qualitatively different in either case.

Purely an illusion of human beings? What? That's like saying matter is purely an illusion of human beings.

NO. Matter is a physcial state, where as time is a vector.

:/ Just because something is finite doesn't negate the fact that it's VERY, VERY big.

Nope, but what proof do you have that it is finite? I mean, you don't believe in god because you don't find proof of it, yet you believe the universe is finite? (which there is less proof of?) Let's say the first law was, "there is energy and there is an infinite ammount", theoretically the universe would be infite. This is highly likely.

Perhaps the universe is filled with intelligent life, however I still put it to you that the chance that there is intelligent life, near enough to contact us and in the same time-frame as us makes it even more unlikely that we will ever find such life.

Good point.

No, not wondering 'what is its purpose' but imagining that the universe was created for it - that's what my example deals with. The cup of coffee example fits just as well as the puddle one, a cup of coffee becomming conscious and imagining that the cup it exists in, that the ingredients it is given, means that the universe was made for it. Never quite realising how insignificant in the broader scheme of things it really was.

Another, sound example.

Ok just don't post gay porn, I'm not the biggest fan of it.

Gay porn? Fine, so long as you don't post religiously offensive pictures.

 

[cheesman]

my point is, the thread and discussion should be entitled "Why do people hate aethism?"
since it has done worse than religion but it seems this is just swept under the carpet.
why do people always blame religion for war etc.. when aethism is worse?

 

[ur_inner_child]

my point is, the thread and discussion should be entitled "Why do people hate aethism?"
since it has done worse than religion but it seems this is just swept under the carpet.
why do people always blame religion for war etc.. when aethism is worse?

Why should the title be changed?

I think if you look at the thread starter's initial post... it shows interest in an atheists' relationship with God and why they are detered by God or religion. Not the other way around.

 

[littlewing69]

my point is, the thread and discussion should be entitled "Why do people hate aethism?"
since it has done worse than religion but it seems this is just swept under the carpet.
why do people always blame religion for war etc.. when aethism is worse?

A.T.H.E.I.S.M

That's alpha tango hotel echo india sierra mike.


And on the point:

1. "who's killed more" is a fairly bullshit way of deciding between ideological constructs.

2. Even so, atheism rarely orchestrates wars because atheism doesn't exist as any organised entity, by definition. It isn't even an ideology so much as the denial of another ideology.

3. There are no door-to-door atheists.

4. Atheists rarely tell me what to do based on an invisible and ludicrous moral code. They don't try to legislate sexual morality or take my grog away.


This is why I feel no dislike for atheists. In fact, I like them, on the whole. They leave me the hell alone and don't try to sway me from my cosy deism/taoism/half-assed Christian/agnostic confused state.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

"Small minority"? Try 30% of the population. In the nordic countries its something like 70%. Minority my ass. And I know of a few atheists who have converted to islam.

No where near 30%. Non-religious may be around 30% but those willing to claim absolutely no belief in God is generally much lower.

You're claiming to have the answer to something that has not and probably will never be proven - claiming to know the existance of a god or the origin of life is arrogance and ignorance at its highest degree, ofcourse I'm going to ignore you.

Am I one of the few people who actually has enough honesty to say "I dont know" ..

No, I'm not claiming to have the answer. I'm merely claiming that non-belief is a more justified position than belief. Of course 'I don't know' will always be the most justified position and I do acknowledge that I will never be 100% certain, but that matters little because there is... extremely little that I can be 100% certain about. There is no evidence for God, I am willing to call myself a God non-believer. There is no evidence for Santa, I am willing to call myself a Santa non-believer.

Ah but you see we know exactly how santa came about, we almost have a recorded history of it - things like life or god is an entirely different prospect as neither can be verified.

No... It's easy for me to make a supernatural explanation. See, Santa wanted people to know of his existance, so he planted the idea magically inside of various people. It is not an entirely different prospect, whenever you are dealing with ANYTHING claimed to be supernatural it cannot be verified.

Have you heard the 'teapot atheist' argument? You can use it in place of 'santa' if you're going to continue to raise objections to that particular example.

You must be joking, just becuase I dont tow the anti-religious, lefty progressive crap suddenly means I'm a religious theist?

No... It's not because you DON'T tow the 'anti-religious, lefty progressive crap', it's because you DO tow the 'religious, conservative crap' that I suspect you believe in a God.

saying "I don't know" isn't the same as saying that there is or isnt a god

You're telling me you don't have an inkling either way, or that you don't have an emotional belief?

notice you're the one with the illogically concieved ideas - you're saying the same thing (content aside) that any fundie christian would say.

No, I am quite aware that I can never be 100% certain of just about anything, but that doesn't stop me taking logical positions. I'm not 100% certain that I am male, hell maybe I'm just hooked into a computer in some lab experiment, being made to believe that in that 'virtual reality' I am male - but I'm not going to take a 'i don't know' position on that, am I?

How do you think my line of "I don't know" impacts of wider society?

I wasn't talking for agnostics, if that's what you are.


------------------------------------------------------

Sam:

Nope, but what proof do you have that it is finite? I mean, you don't believe in god because you don't find proof of it, yet you believe the universe is finite?

Well... it depends... the 'wider' universe / all of reality? Or

the observable universe, consisting of all locations that could have affected us since the Big Bang given the finite speed of light

. Beyond the latter explanation I really don't have an idea either way.

How do you propose that the laws which govern the universe did come about?

I don't know. The 'laws' that govern the universe, seem to be part-in-parcel with our known universe, so what you're really asking is 'How did the universe come about?', pretty hard question to pose to some 19 year old bloke

 

[runtlocks]

Not-That-Bright is a god, he's been on this board since the dawn of time.

Thus the 10,000 something or other posts.

 

[littlewing69]

Only military personnel, pilots, and used-car salemen would know you're using the ICAO alphabet.

I couldn't think of any other way to make the point. Though, now I'm hoping the guy isn't dyslexic or from a non-English speaking background, cos that'd just make me a dick....

 

[P_Dilemma]

I'll just politicise the question "Why do ppl hate religion" to "Why are people moving towards aetheism" for the purpose of my response to this thread...

Well, when you've been taught that God is a great guy with great attitude with a great flowing beard, there is a tendency to become a little disappointed when, after you've reached 18, you don't really see much of god's great glory. The real world takes over. I guess the LACK of god is a contributing factor to people moving away from religion; they feel disillusioned, disappointed, lied to, even.

The next category are those holding blind faith but are rapidly losing their confidence. I mean, didn't the guys say Jesus was supposed to come back in the year 2000? Where is he now? Ok, maybe he's delayed his return. I can wait another few years... can I? These people are beginning to adopt the view that their faith has no real foudation other than a thick black book that ALLEGEDLY chronicles the happenings of humankind on earth since Adam and Eve. When you look at it from other perspectives, you can see that it does seem pretty weak...

Ok, and then there's the issue of terrorism (maybe). I'm unwilling to fully commit to this explanation because, honestly, i'm not sure. It just seems to me that some people are beginning to wonder whay kind of God would let this crap happen. It's the old, boring argument: if god is so powerful blah, blah, blah... but it can't be denied that it's possibly a contributing factor.

There just aren't enough miracles happening in the world to keep us content.

-P_D

 

[robbie1]

Way to misquote Jesus. I think you'll find he prefaces that bit with "and another is like it", having said the most important thing is to love God.

EDIT: I realise this is represented differently in the various gospels, but I think it would be fair to say that Jesus always stressed love of God first.

Yeh of course loving God comes first, but with that comes loving your neighbour. Apologies - reading over my post again it does seem misleading. Love God, love your neighbour - they are the centre of Christianity.

 

[robbie1]

There just aren't enough miracles happening in the world to keep us content.

-P_D

Seek and you will find my friend. There are plenty.

 

[lengy]

The one thing that's more annoying than the religious christians are the anti-religious people, they dont notice it by they try to impose their beliefs more forcefully than the average christian, and have an illogical overt hatred of christianity because they percieve it to be oppressive (Islam on the other hand is fine ofcourse) - most of the stuff these so called science-adhering anti-religious people show as evidence for their beliefs is no more believable than the christian variations, the difference is that the anti-religionites actually pretend theirs is. I have yet to be questioned on my religion by any christian, pleanty of atheists have done it however - I think everyone should keep their stupid beliefs to themselves, starting with the muslims, then atheists, then christians (in that order).

You can start by keeping your pro-fascism, anti-abortion ideals to yourself.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

You can start by keeping your pro-fascism, anti-abortion ideals to yourself.

bshoc = Ustaše

 

[stargaze]

It's sad so see what has become of today's church and religious leaders. At best, I can only say that when you look into 'religion', don't look at so called 'religious' organisations. I'm not saying all religious organisation are bad, but I think there has to be distinction (if it can be) drawn between things like the Bible and man's interpretation of what is religion and how it should be displayed.

 

[KFunk]

i ask this question again
this time someone respond with a good answer
Why dont people hate aethism, over religion?

after all, the majority of killings/deaths throughout history have been caused by aethist.
look at hitler, stalin, the chinese cultural revolution.
clearly aethism has been the product of more evil than religion.

There are plenty of atrocities associated with and even commited in the name of religion ( http://skeptically.org/enlightenment/id7.html ). Your above examples are of movements which were also led by men in positions of political power. Are men then more evil than women? Is the politician more evil than the common citizen?

It's a mistake to think that simply because certain figures were atheists that their actions stand for certain values inherent to atheism (if there are any in the first place). There have also existed atheists who (in my mind) have fought for decent causes, such as Simone de Beauviour, Bertrand Russel and Albert Einstein. These people are not proof of the 'goodness' of atheism (although, one might see de Beaviour's ethics as having arisen from what is essentially an atheistic existential condition).

"Why dont people hate aethism, over religion?"

Atheism is simply a stance involving the disbelief in god - something which, in itself, does not advocate action of any kind (good nor bad). Atheism cannot be used as a justification for evil actions. Religions, as systems of belief, commonly carry values with them which are often used to justify actions (both good and bad).

If a person sees religion as a source of more bad then good (which is not too infrequent given the amount of conflict which seems to be grounded in religious values) then they will likely rate religion below atheism. On the other hand, if a person sees religion as a net source of good (charity, wholesome values etc) then they would probably see atheism as something which destroys these +'ve values.

... It's all a point of view really.

 

[cheesman]

thankyou