What do you think has driven atheists to hate religion?

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 107 discussions (575 posts)

0
sneakorocksolidposted 15 years ago
Maybe it's getting up early on Sundays!
reply report
1. 86
  Marisa Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Atheists do not hate religion per se. They are frustrated and angered by blinkered religious people who don't think for themselves or apply rational thought to their beliefs.
  reply report
  0
  sneakorocksolidposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree!
  reply report
  71
  borge_009posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You're right. I agree.
  reply report
  58
  Nik Aberleposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That, and the fact that those people tend to shove religion down an atheists throat whether they want to hear it or not. Funny how it's not OK for you to question a religious person's faith, but if you don't agree with them you're fair game.
  reply report
  77
  starme77posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you , well said
  reply report
  62
  karobiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  marisa wright, i completely disagree with you, the reason is simple, they are the one that lack understanding. remember the letters kills but the spirit gives life. is their poor undersanding of spiritual matters that is the cause.
  reply report
  62
  allenvaegaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with you Marisa...not only are the Religionists lacking in originality, but they are uneducated in the origins of their Faith...(those lucky ones who are educated are actually Spiritual as opposed to religious). Athiests view of Religion is a natural result of a history marred with deceitful intentions and propaganda geared to manipulate and control societies future development in all areas of life.
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Welcome to hubpages Allen! I can see we will be allies in these forums.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  my question then would be this:
  
  why are 'atheists' solely concentrated on religion -especially one section, Christianity- and not the whole of the Ism itself.
  Is atheism as biased as the other cults?
  
  Let's put the flashlight of scrutiny on the WHOLE of the Ism and not single out one group. Else we might as well get the Third Reich in here and start singling out just jews. Or the right wing liberal theists, singling out radical extremists.
  
  There is a lot of hogs-snot being tossed into the salad.
  Seems neither the Ism or its splinter factions -including atheism, anti-theism- understands the fundamental basics of their own beliefs. lol.
  
  What a funny funny world we live in.
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'd like to point out here, that not believing in any of the sky fairies requires no "ism"
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Athe-ISM??????
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  get `em Mikel.
  reply report
  66
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There is nowhere you can go and get a list of doctrines held by atheists on a whole rafter of issues. This is not true of religion.
  
  Christianity varies on many points, but ultimately it is a position on the "fact" of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
  
  Atheism... actually, there is no such thing as "atheism"... maybe that's the problem; it's a word that actually refers to "something" that doesn't exist... I mean, there is no set of "atheism" doctrines.
  
  Theoretically there could be atheists that do not believe in evolution, for example.
  reply report
  59
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I am an Atheist who don't believe in evolution.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  really? so by doctrines you mean published literature, yes?
  be careful, you might slip and bruise your hip there, fella.
  
  How would an atheist know what a doctrine entails, without experiencing it in its fullness?
  
  LOL. I am sorry to laugh at you, but 'atheism' by definition is a part of the Ism -an opposing view of the Ism or any elements within. disregarding or opposing an element of the Ism states that one is apart of it.
  
  But yes, since the supposed atheist has no doctrine or published proof, how -by pure critique- can you or they expect anyone to regard your position.
  If you have substantial claims, can provide proof or evidence of that claim -strictly and only from your perspective.
  Do not dare use another doctrine to provide a basis for your own, whether or not to defend or dismiss.
  
  Show me and I will retract my statement. Else, my stance is that both you the atheist and theist are redundant applications of the Need To Know. Duality. Rhetoric.
  reply report
  66
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't get the hip thing.
  I also didn't get that you were laughing at me, ergo was not offended
  
  I was a born again Christian for five years. So I know about believing in doctrine in its fullness.
  
  As to the rest of your post, I didn't really understand it, on the whole.
  
  Suffice to say, all religions have doctrines that anyone practicing that religion (and who is sufficiently educated in that religion) can rattle off to you. Whether it is published or not seems immaterial.
  
  Atheists, however, share ONE belief. That there is no God.
  
  Now, on the other hand, there is probably a large subset of atheists within the set of atheists as a whole who do believe the same things. Still, I can't understand why this is being called a religion.
  
  Don't we all have a commonsensical definition of the word 'religion' in our heads. Wouldn't pretty well all English speakers say that the word 'religion' refers to an organization of people who believe, or profess to believe, a set of things, especially about ethics and morality. But the key point here is that a normal, native speaker of English would say a religion is an ORGANIZATION. We can muse on unusual ways to define words that most people already agree on the definition of... but what is this.... a class in socio-linguistics...?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  I've got a hub that explains the 'why' of that.
  reply report
  66
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Does it dispute the statement that ninety-nine percent of native speakers of English would agree that the word "religion" refers to an organization?
  
  Even so, maybe it's true; maybe a "movement" is not necessarily always "organized." Still, I'd have to continue to insist that the word "religion," as used by most English users, has a finite meaning, and that meaning does not cover what atheists do and think.
  
  In other words, a religion makes SPECIFIC pronouncements about morality and ethics, for example. Every religion does this, and does so in its own way. Atheists, as a group, do not share the same set of beliefs or values in this regard.
  
  Your serve
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Read it and find out.
  report
  71
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Like I said.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly! Case in point. The dismissal of the Ism pertaining to said 'sky faire' denotes causality of the Ism.
  Try all you like, ex-religionista, ( though friend and humorous Earnest), you're still stuck in that Ism!
  reply report
  66
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  For me "ism" implies rituals, and patterns of behaviour followed by acolytes. An atheist could be a Chinese Communist or an American capitalist, a British punk rocker or an Indian scientist...
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  so could a christian...
  
  Christianity is not Religion...it is merely one small part of a greater whole. Replacing the word Religion for Christian when you're really only talking about christianity is confusing at best. What I mean by this is saying 'Religionists' are brain washed by the bible...what about Pagans...they are religionists, and the statement therefore only makes sense when you use the correct wording, I.e. Christians are brain washed by the Bible.(or Muslims are brain washed by the Quran...etc.)
  reply report
  66
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  A Christian cannot be a Marxist.
  
  Christianity is a religion.
  
  I am not only talking about Christianity.
  
  I have never said religionists are brainwashed by the Bible. If I have, I take it back, because I think things are much more complicated than that.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  I said Christianity was not Religion, I did not say Christianity was not A Religion. A Chinese Communist could also be a Christian. You said nothing of a Marxist until now.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  hello? a the ISM ! anyone, anyone. lol.
  this is fun. no really, it is for me.
  reply report
  66
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Communism, Socialism, liberalism, conservatism, Marxism
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Which includes science (classicism). religions -plural (romanticism)
  
  collards greens, ding pick `em up!
  reply report
  66
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  ?
  reply report
  69
  wyanjenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Christianity is what we talk about because christians are the people we are talking to.
  There are a few gnostics, Buddhists and others roaming around but the dominant religion here is christianity.
  It's not a discrimination thing, it's a demographic thing.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yet without logical foundation -meaning true critique consciousness (what some cal critical thinking), precisely and emphatically discriminate, on purpose. Seems like atheist -as viewed much here- are solely interested in one particular class of beliefs. Which makes them no better than their counterparts.
  
  Ironic, but not surprising, since what most consider atheism, is not a disbelief in the opposing principles of a religion or all religions, it is a pollination of another, having no sustainable ideology other than to say, no your wrong and I can prove it. Which is precisely what the other elements of the Ism -on both sides, mind you- do with great expression.
  
  Ah, Duality, when will you finally get it? Even with your notion of Quality, you still lack the basic building blocks of understanding.
  reply report
  52
  starg8t1posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well said. I agree 100% on your perspective.
  reply report
  60
  cjhunsingerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  As an avowed and life long atheist, I have long learned that one person can not speak for others even though philosophies are similiar. I personally do not hate religion. Hate I think is a theistic character trait which I have absolutely no regard for. My particular form of atheism is predicated upon the individual and his actions. More in tune with the Bill of Rights. Conversely theistic principals as my research would indicate, are imbedded deep within the emotional structure of man. Hence, fear, hatred, fight or flight as opposed to the reasoned and objective approach of Atheism. In my blogs (hubpages) I have outlined and defined what Atheism is and is not. The definitions given certainly reflect the optimum of human behavior and conduct and like all good things are to be strived for. Life is the optimum of human existence. There are few who understand that and consquently for far too many life is abused and life is wasted in fear, guilt, shame and the sin of theistic mythologies.
  reply report
2. 38
  World Marketingposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LoL
  reply report
3. 55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I probably get more accomplished Sunday morning than you do all week. And, while I'm out there enjoying myself with whatever I'm doing, I think about the poor saps wasting their lives away worshiping their imaginary gods when they could also be enjoying their lives with their families instead of instilling fear and dogma into their minds.
  reply report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Just to play Devil's advocate (oh how delicious is this particular irony), I know lots of religious people who truly enjoy going to church and being involved with the sense of community it provides, etc. They bring their families with them and do stuff together. So, while I agree that the fear and dogma are at work in the belief system, the community and the joy and accomplishments of it (assuming they do more than sing and holler and writhe around in ecstasy of the lord, etc.) are not negated by the underlying superstition.
  
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The bliss you observe is one of ignorance taught by the underlying superstition. How is that a good thing?
  reply report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The bliss you experience reading a book or watching a movie is bliss spawned by fiction that plays on your hopes, fears etc.
  
  The bliss you experience drinking a beer or whatever else is spawned by creations of mankind.
  
  The bliss you experience riding a roller coaster or driving in a fast car is bliss got by means devised by men.
  
  What makes you get to decide what bliss is acceptable bliss and what bliss is not?
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not saying one bliss is acceptable over another. I'm simply saying that bliss generated from religion is one generated from indoctrination and delusion.
  reply report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I don't disagree.
  
  But, bliss is bliss. If you can get some along the road to your grave, I reckon you ought to take it.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I would NEVER accept bliss from delusion, that is intellectually dishonest and contradicts everything the rational and reasonable take into consideration.
  reply report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The operative term in your statement is "I."
  
  My point was that IF you can get some bliss, you take it. Clearly YOU cannot get some bliss from that particular source. That does not render it no longer a source of bliss. There are other people plodding down the road to graveyards too.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If those people were indoctrinated to believe they are getting some bliss, but it was a false bliss based on lies and deceit, would you want them to take it or would you rather try to explain the falseness of their bliss?
  reply report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It would depend on what you consider is to be gained by permeating their delusion.
  
  If the point of showing them the error of their ways is only to make them aware that the source of their bliss is a god-story that is not true, then what you are asking them to do is trade bliss based on a lie for a lack of bliss based on truth.
  
  What is the benefit of your truth to them?
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The benefit would be for them to understand that their bliss is false and is based on lies, that they can be honest with themselves which will allow them to be honest with others, and that there are a great many things in life that will provide them with real bliss.
  
  If you lie to yourself, you will lie to others.
  reply report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  To lie is to deceive with intent. If you believe something that others call a lie, you are not lying when you speak it because your intent is not to deceive.
  
  I believe what you should consider saying is that they will spread the bliss-giving delusion, rather than "lie."
  
  That said, what good is truth that does nothing but remove happiness. There is no other benefit to the person to whom you have revealed your truth. They simply lose the happiness they had received from believing what they believe. They now believe what you believe and are no longer receiving bliss and additionally, are no longer spreading the bliss-giving delusion so that others can have that bliss.
  
  If there is no god or eternal happiness as you suggest, then there is no reward for "truth" in a hereafter. So, if there is no eternal bliss, there is only this lifetime in which to experience bliss. Why take it from someone who has it if this lifetime is the only lifetime we get?
  report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This exchange prompts three thoughts.
  
  I think Q has a point about the lying, first of all. I think that at some level, the religious believer knows he is lying to himself and others, especially the more religious the believer.
  
  Maybe I'm giving them more credit than they merit -(or less?)- but I really, sincerely find it hard to believe that people can actually be this stupid. I'm not talking so much about the average believer who has no friggin' clue because he's just pretty much ignorant, but the so-called educated ones at least must be aware within themselves of all the lies involved in maintaining and defending their faith.
  
  This lack of personal integrity has to be a negative thing on the personal psyche and the society.
  
  I wonder then, how real is this bliss. Does it not often hide an inner turmoil, and used by the believer consciously to quell the inner turmoil.
  
  A state of bliss induced by false means can -and certainly does- blind believers to reality's needs, especially when it is accompanied by a belief that god will take care of everything in the end.
  
  Again, bad for the person, at least potentially, and certainly bad for society.
  
  The third thing I'm wondering is do you condone other means of artificial bliss inducement, and would you argue equally in favor of such means? Forget drugs if you want, and look only at self-delusion, or deception of others. Did Jim Jones' followers die blissfully happy? Is the woman deluding herself that her husband loves her and is faithful when he's out screwing around okay because her delusion and his deception keep her in a state of oblivious blissfulness?
  
  Not arguing, just wondering.
  report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That is because you are imposing/assuming the same degree of reason you possess on others. You assume that since you can see that they are all wrong, they must too. I would argue that’s begging the question: I know I’m right, so down deep they know I’m right too. Not only does this beg the question, it might be a bit condescending, given that nobody actually KNOWS if there is a god or not.
  
  I think you have hit on a lot of things here. Some people actually are “this stupid” as you put it, if by that you mean, they are more easily convinced of things than you are. Some people aren’t interested in thinking deeply about logical relationships between ideas. Some people just accept answers from authority figures and move on, sort of a, “Well, that person is smarter than I am; he/she has already figured this out; why should I complicate my life solving a problem that’s already been solved.” While this attitude might be unpalatable for you or me, that does not make it ‘wrong’ for millions or even billions of others. We as individuals don’t get to define that sort of thing for everyone else.
  
  As for the “lies involved in maintaining and defending their faith,” if we assume by “so-called educated ones” you mean people who actually are educated (to be ‘so-called’ means to not actually be educated and therefore excused from the discussion in the same way you would excuse a ‘so-called’ doctor from performing your surgery once you discovered he was an actor who only plays a doctor on TV), then I would say the same thing that I said up top, that you impose your belief system on them by insisting that to be intelligent is to recognize that there IS no God. And if that is NOT what you are saying, if you are merely saying they defend the lies of a religion, and that they get a pass for believing in god, just not one for buying into dogma, then I would say, sure, there are some intelligent/educated people who fall prey to dogma, and probably more who perpetuate it to maintain power and influence. Humanity is like that.
  
  I agree. I think if you knowingly perpetuate lies to do harm (sell God for tithes and donation plate revenue to fund your own power… or even just to maintain your persona as “holier than thou” or whatever). It’s all about what down deep, in the private places of your soul that only you can see, it’s there that the INTENT of what you do is either right or wrong, and by that measure “a negative thing on the psyche.” What good for society is something else. Evil has wrought good before. Good has wrought evil. That conversation could go on for a long, long time.
  
  I think that over-simplifies things. What are “reality’s needs” precisely? Maslow’s hierarchy?
  
  As long as the drug use does not personally impact my life and said user can maintain him/herself without being a burden, why not? I return to my original point about life being the time we have from birth to death. Without a god and heaven to add to our “span of awareness” (to avoid pedantic terms ) then we only have X number of years. Enjoy it how you can. You’re just going to be worm food anyway. As for Jim Jone’s people. I’m sure some died blissfully happy. Some knew there were in thrall. However, when you use a case that extreme (a cult, not a religion, btw), you introduce a bit of a red herring. We’re either talking about belief in god, blind dedication to religion, or the existence of manipulative charismatic cult leaders. While all are related in certain ways, none are the same.
  report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  But, we can explain that belief in gods would violate many of the physical laws our universe has bestowed upon itself and that if gods did exist, then the physical laws of the universe are exchanged for magic.
  
  If the believer argues that their prayers WILL violate the physical laws of the universe and that magic reigns supreme over everything, they would in fact be lying to us and themselves as they know they have never experienced or observed any law in the universe having been violated.
  
  Wouldn't it them be appropriate to explain and educate?
  
  Yes, that does make it wrong. If people are going to lazy and unconcerned, and believe in hocus-pocus drawn from the Bronze age, they most certainly are at fault.
  report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The problem is that you're still begging the question. This argument is essentially saying, "You should believe that the laws of physics as understood by humans at this time in history adequately disprove the existence of god and negate religion because I believe that they do."
  
  Clearly that argument doesn't work for everyone because it hasn't worked for centuries. I return to my argument from the last couple of posts that propose that a person is not lying to themselves if they believe what they are saying. A child who tells you that the tooth fairy left $5 under their pillow is not lying to you.
  
  If there was a reason for it. There comes a time when letting the child believe in the tooth fairy is no longer productive. Belief in stories that can be disproved can be detrimental. But, that's where the tooth fairy analogy parts from a God-story. While ontologically, we can argue that both the tooth fairy and God 'might' exist, and we can't disprove either given the nature of disproving negatives, etc., there is no reason to sustain a belief in the tooth fairy because the purpose of that story is only to explain the appearance of money which relieves the scary nature of bleeding mouths and loose teeth that can frighten children - plus they are going to discover on their own that there is no tooth fairy at some point. The God-story, similarly created to relieve fear in the earliest myths (in my opinion) continues to explain the inexplicable to people, thus giving them not only comfort, but often "bliss" as we have been using all along. Since you cannot disprove God and the fears of death and all those other scary things are not answered by physics satisfactorily for everyone, there is no reason to take bliss from someone only to replace one unprovable belief system with another unprovable belief system. Physics only has evidence of mathematically provable probabilities, but it has no solution to the metaphysics of God.
  
  You cannot be faulted for ignorance or a low I.Q. Furthermore, I repeat my arguments from before yet again, they are only being "lazy and unconcerned" in your eyes because you call their unwillingness to spend lots of time reading and researching until they come to the same conclusion you have. This is ultimately begging the question again, because you are asserting that if they study long enough they will see that you have it right because you have drawn the right conclusions where they have not. They drew different conclusions and don't feel they need to keep working until they agree with you. That is not a compelling argument. "If you put in the effort you can agree with me!"
  report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm gonna agree with you to a point. There are plenty of people who are incapable one way or another of realizing that their religion is bunk. It does take alot of time, effort, energy and heart for the average joe to get to the bottom of all the tangled explanations and b.s. I know this to be true because I had to do it from that unprepared perspective myself. I was fortunate in that I had the time and the drive. I had to know the truth of it all, I could not be comfortable in my role as a mother otherwise, and based on my reading history it was difficult for me not to notice the problems, many of which I was prepared for due to things I had already encountered.
  
  With religion I believe it is do-able that they can be disproved beyond any reasonable doubt. Some people choose to then create their own theories, and it annoys me that they can't take the train to the end of the line, so to speak, and I believe logically that such can also be shown to be in error, but I also realize that for these people logic has little to do with it.
  
  They simply want to still believe in something god-like. Some of them will eventually put it away, many a past believer spends some time in the theist zone and/or deist zone before they let that go and become agnostic, and then finally pass on into the light of atheism, if you'll forgive me the terminology.
  
  I do agree with Q I guess it was who mentioned it briefly that atheism is very liberating, at least it is for the thinking person. It is its own bliss, but I guess if you cannot really follow the path to it, then you cannot know that bliss. You know what I mean? You have to own it, so to speak. I still don't think I'm really making clear enough sense, though I expect you would get it.
  
  Let me put it this way. A devoted believer in a religion can't just become a happy atheist without knowing exactly why he/she is doing so, and being comfortable in that decision. First he/she would have to realize the falsity of his/her own religion, then realize the falsity of all religion, try being just a religionless god believer, and then figure out why that doesn't work, give agnosticism a go till he/she realizes the futility of that and finally accepts that there is simply just no reason in the world to believe in a god.
  
  When you get there, you know exactly why and how you have come to be there. Wherever you are -theologically speaking at least- you can't be comfortable without knowing why and how you're there. At least, not if you're a deep thinking kind of person.
  
  So it's a drip drip drip kind of thing. Building blocks. When the whole puzzle finally becomes complete for you, and you don't have any missing blocks, it is indescribably blissful. There are no more thorns left in your side, no more doubts, and no more life and death related struggles.
  
  Don't misunderstand, I know my knowledge and humanity's knowledge is far from complete, but at the same time I know that nothing to be discovered is going to change the fact that there is no reason to believe in a god.
  
  There are struggles, but they are human struggles. They are things that we are actually equipped to deal with, which actually provide results worth acheiving. There are no more fruitless struggles to know the unknowable.
  
  Just like as with the drug use you mentioned, if it is harmless to society and provides the user more good than bad, okay. But I don't believe that belief in religion provides the user or the society more good than bad.
  
  Yes, as I think I said above more or less each person has to decide that for themselves. It's unfortunate that most people never attempt a search for truth. They just turn to what they think is good based on their culture.
  
  All I can do is try and be a source of that drip drip drip. If it sometimes annoys people, well, if it annoys people more than it helps them then I have to work on developing a better delivery system. Because alot of people will just turn the faucet off if it gets on their nerves, or take to wearing ear-plugs.
  
  So, yeah, in a way I think you're right. I could provide an analogy based on the recovery of the cheated wife scenario -(which I notice you didn't address)- but this post has certainly been too long already.
  
  In anything there are stages of recovery. The recoverer has to be prepared to handle the reality of each stage before he/she can advance to the next one. It's not always a comfortable process. But in the end, I do believe it's worth it.
  report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think you might be begging the question with your spin on my argument. Let me reword that for you so it is closer to my argument.
  
  "One should understand the laws of physics as that will help one to understand more of the world around them, allowing them to think instead of just believe, which may lead them to understand they were indoctrinated into a religion."
  
  We shouldn't be comparing the mind of child with that of an adult in this context, as an adult should have the capacity to know the difference.
  
  You see no reason for education? None? No benefit, whatsoever?
  
  But, they will never discover that there is no god, so your point would appear to be moot.
  
  I never said their unprovable belief system is to be replaced with another, that would defeat the purpose. What unprovable belief system do you refer that supplants?
  
  So what? When you begin to understand the world around you, the metaphysics of god, or anything resembling the concepts of gods, disappears as irrelevant.
  
  If one has the means to educate themselves, but refuses to do so, yes, they are at fault.
  
  IQ's mean very little.
  
  No, they would come to the same conclusions that everybody who does the research comes to, not just me.
  
  Again, they are not my personal conclusions, I have no idea where you get that.
  
  That isn't the argument at all. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
  report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, well, with the use of "may lead" and specifically tied to religion rather than belief in god, I can happily say, we both agree perfectly. Perhaps I misread your statements from before, I apologize for my sloppiness.
  
  In most conversations, I would agree with you. But the very fact that god is so often called "the Father" proves that the adults to who worship Him have placed themselves in that kind of relationship, one of blind trust and a recognition, whether or conscious or not, that they are incapable of fathoming the parent who is obviously well beyond them in every way.
  
  I see it. But just because I think there is benefit doesn't mean they do. And, in keeping with my "if you have bliss in your life and you die happy in a universe with no afterlife etc.," what difference does it make if they meet the standards you and I have for being "educated." They don't have to please the two of us, they just have to live their lives and be happy.
  
  I should point out here, that I derive no joy, no bliss, from my inability to believe in God. I wish there was a God who loved me and was going to give me eternal salvation. Seriously, don't you?
  
  But there isn't one, that I can believe in. An awesome complicated universe and the unfathomable beauty of even one single blooming rose, all of nature, all of the intricacies of our bodies, the solar system, an atom... all of that is insanely perfect, but, as you will agree, does not stand as evidence of God. Just because I am, becaues Man is, too simple to understand how something works doesn't prove God. That does not make me happy. I wish it did prove God. So I repeat, if there was a loving God, that would be bliss to know. Some people believe they know that.
  
  What good is it to take that from them, especially when you can't actually PROVE that there isn't one. That's all I'm saying.
  
  Actually, that is exactly my point, and rather than "moot" that was the distinction.
  
  The unprovable belief that there is no god.
  
  Well, I have no intention of getting into an argument about the existence or not existence of IQ, as that leads into a whole nature vs. nurture argument ect. However, if you are actually suggesting that all people have the same intellectual capacity and that with the due dilligence we could all be Steven Hawkings, Copernicuses and Einsteins, I'm just going to say, while I respect your respect for your fellow humanity, I disagree completely and leave it at that.
  
  I was not intending to put words in your mouth. If I did, I do apologize. My intent was rephrasing to clarify what I believe your statement boils down to. You seem to be saying to me the following:
  
  1) If people put in the effort to learn science they will see that physical laws describe/explain life and the universe, etc.
  2) Understanding things in this way will relieve them of the need to believe in supernatural explanations for the universe.
  3) You believe in science and its explanations for the universe.
  
  If these three premeses are correct, then my statement remains. You are indeed saying that if people put in effort to learn science they will believe as you do. If I am incorrect, please show me what I have missed.
  report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps, that was the point I failed to communicate properly in that there is no forcing of anyone to change their beliefs, it is only through discussion and learning that one can decide to change their belief system to a thinking system and come to their own conclusions, if they so desire to do so.
  
  Ah, I see where you're coming from now. Thanks for the clarification.
  
  Wouldn't that then put the onus on the rest of us as stewards of mankind, allowing them the benefit of living an irresponsible life of ignorance and bliss while the rest of us tended to terrestrial problems? Don't you think they should at least take responsibility for their lives as well as the future of mankind?
  
  Perhaps, if there were actually one god with one message for all mankind, and if the god made himself visible to us, then maybe. But, you see, Hokey, that is my only real concern in this lifetime is to do everything I can to make sure mankind survives, that we are not all divided by ideologies that teach us to hate one another, that teach us to despise knowledge and understanding and instead to accept faith and ignorance, and lead a life of servitude and obedience.
  
  I would just hope it is demonstrated to all mankind one way or the other so that we can move along united as one, helping each other and living in peace. The current systems of belief just aren't working at all.
  
  By having that system in place, we do ourselves an injustice towards mankind and our future on this planet. It is the current belief systems that we have had ruling our world these past many centuries that have caused the many problems we are forced to deal with today.
  
  My point though is that you are not offering a belief system that comes to that conclusion, the offering is simply one of knowledge and understanding of the world around us, a thinking system, instead. And again, I say it is only an offering, not to be forced on others.
  
  No, I'm not saying we all have the capacity to come up with theories like Einstein, but we all certainly have the capacity to understand their theories, which is the point I'm trying to make.
  
  And of course, if people simply live a life of ignorance bliss and never do tackle learning, we will never know how many Einsteins are being left to their belief system of ignorance, servitude and obedience towards a god, that could have instead potentially unlocked many more answers to questions had they taken up the opportunity.
  
  Would it make one blissfully happy to have come up with a working theory nobody else thought of?
  
  It is in your third statement that would require rewording and your summary. First to your third on the list.
  
  To work and understand science, one is not using a belief system such as is used in theology. One is using a method that derives observational results, hard evidence. One now has an understanding of those results, not a belief in the results. They may continue to believe in their gods but they certainly cannot believe away the results of the experiment.
  
  Hence, to work with science, you are taking on a system of thinking and not a system of belief, hence you don't wind up "believing" in science and its explanations, you have a complete understanding of how those things work.
  
  For example, before I knew anything about physics, I believed the universe was static and absolute until I learned about relativity. At first, relativity was a concept the was counter-intuitive to everything I believed, but once I began to grasp it, everything changed as far as my understanding, I no longer believed, I understood, instead. Big difference.
  
  Your summary "they will believe as you do" is incorrect as I explained that the belief system becomes a thinking system in which one understands and no longer just believes. That said, it also has nothing to do with me personally and everything to do with understanding the world as the world presents it and not what I believe.
  report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Totally agree.
  report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with your second point, but not the first. Some people are just not equipped with the gray goo to grasp things far simpler than Einstein's math; some people barely function at all. I don't care if it's nature or nurture, however that happens, it happens. Your concluding idea, however, is spot on.
  
  I hear what you're saying, but where this falls apart for me in becoming anything approaching certainty is that you can always toss "god" back in at the end as a plausibility. Your laws of physics describe everything. Except where the universe came from. You say, "the big bang." I say, "Ok, who caused the big bang?" You say, "No one." I say, "How do you know?" You say, "Because physics has theory XYZ." I say, "Ok, but who initiated the XYZ event?" You say, "No one." I say, "How do you know?" Etc. The point is, eventually it comes down to a point where you just don't know. Which is why god-stories continue to exist. The only difference between the old Thunder gods and modern gods is that modern gods no longer meddle in the weather. I'm not saying this is proof of god. I'm just saying it is not dis-proof of god either.
  
  As for the rest, I imagine we're pretty close together on how we view it generally.
  report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  While I would agree with that to a certain extent, I think that has more to do with current public schooling systems that cannot meet those demands of the individuals who require more attention in these matters. I think most everyone who doesn't have a debilitating mental condition can be taught just about anything given time and the appropriate attention.
  
  I have been involved in the rationale behind that line of thinking and don't agree with it. In other words, science may not have all the answers today, but will most likely find those answers given time.
  
  Therefore, it is intellectually dishonest, fallacious and specious, at best, for those who cannot accept "We currently don't know" and only choose to embrace the supernatural for that answer.
  report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I hear what you're saying. It is my opinion, however, that whatever we figure out with science, even if we literally figured out everything that can ever be known, someone could still say, "Yeah, but who put all that in place?"
  
  I'm not saying I necessarily buy that, because I'm the kind of person who then says to those people, "Well, who created God?" But hey, I'm just saying, that's what will happen.
  report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps, but that question wouldn't get asked if that particular person had taken the time to understand that these events happen entirely on their own. I think that question is just a throw-back of religious thought processes.
  
  Anyone who begins down the road of understanding how our world works will observe that a 'guiding hand' is unnecessary and irrelevant complexity to already simple answers.
  report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It is the indoctrination process that causes one to "believe" the lie. The lie and the intent still exist and are only masked by the indoctrination. The believer will spread a lie in the same aspect as spreading a delusion as they also believe it is not a delusion.
  
  Perhaps, you would let others live their lives lying to themselves and living a life of perpetual delusion rather than explaining that there are other things in life that are real that derive far more happiness than the lie/delusion could ever provide. Personally, I would try to explain that.
  
  And, of course, it is never a matter of changing one's beliefs to suit another set of beliefs, but instead, is a matter of changing belief into thinking.
  
  One is not removing any happiness, one is simply trying to explain to the person that there are other things in life that are real that can provide more happiness than a lie/delusion.
  
  I think what you're trying to argue is that lies and delusions are the ONLY form of happiness that can be derived, yes?
  report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  To the first part of your reply, I can only echo what I have already said. If they believe they are happy (via their delusion), and given we only have one life with no afterlife (the assumption of no god at work here), then who cares? Happy is happy.
  
  To the second two points you made, in both parts you used the phrase "more happiness." I'm curious how you quantify happiness. And once you have, how can you control its distribution across different minds, personalities etc. to be certain your answer to the unsolvable mystery of God etc. is more gratifying than the belief system they gave up? And at that point, how have you not just created a religion?
  report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  So, you are in favor of propagating lies and delusions, and having the world remain in a perpetual state of ignorance and false bliss, believing in the myths and superstitions of the Bronze age. You would much rather the religious indoctrination machine take control of everyone's lives and destroy all reason and rationale simply because there is only one life to live.
  
  That would have to be one of the most irresponsible things I've heard in a long time.
  
  Don't you think one would be "more" happy if they understood they have been duped by lies/delusions and are no longer under that control? Just ask any person here who was indoctrinated and then began thinking for themselves.
  
  Nope. But, if you believe thinking is a religion, then so be it.
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  So, if one is in doctrine or indoctrinated, as you say, then both sides of the Ism -respectively- are invalid. Both have lied and deceived, exceedingly for gain, control and perhaps the removal of the notion of bliss in the first place?
  
  just a thought...
  reply report
4. 62
  qwarkposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This question is meaningless and dumb.
  Of course one must consider the "source" when one considers it.
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Questions can be dumb? I thought only answers can be considered dumb.
  reply report
5. 69
  pylos26posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  People like you?
  reply report
6. 60
  pisean282311posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  is it that all atheist hate religion?..i dont think so..i know some atheist who think religion is good to maintain order in the society...religion has done lot of good to the human beings but over obessed with religion making my way only way for all and trying to impose is what makes matter worse...religion should be strictly a private matter...
  reply report
7. 0
  cosetteposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  i don't think "atheists", or individuals who disbelieve in the Christian God hate religion - i think religion hates them. you know, all those questions and whatnot...
  reply report
8. 0
  Dog On A Missionposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This video sums it up nicely for me:
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
  
  God is all powerful, but he is REALLY bad with money.
  reply report
9. 51
  paarsurreyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hi friends
  
  The Atheists hate religion mostly in their own confusion and partly due to unreasonable concepts of the religionists.
  
  Thanks
  
  I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
  reply report
  66
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It might have something to do with the destruction wreaked by various religions over many centuries. I did not say this JUSTIFIES it, but it might explain it.
  reply report
10. 59
  Paul Wingertposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Athhiests do not hate religion(s). What drives them away from organized religion is common sense and the ability to think for themselves.
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hi friend Paul Wingert
  
  Please go on any Atheist forum and see for yourself. You might be a good Atheists, it is OK with me.
  
  Thanks
  
  I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
  reply report
11. 59
  Rayalternatelyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Atheists hate religionists in the same way that religionists hate atheists. The beliefs are poles apart and, as is often the case when views are so diametrically opposed, rational debate simply doesn't occur.
  
  To ridicule each other is the easy option, and human nature being what it is, the easy option is most prevalent on these forums, as it is elsewhere.
  reply report
12. 68
  goldenpathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  me
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Short Baldy, my humble friend, what is the rationale behind preachers not having to pay income tax? Or doing so at a special discount? Can you explain the situation to me? I won't argue about it, with you here in this thread at any rate, just seeking info. Maybe there's a good reason behind it.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh yeah and don't be ridiculous. The world does not revolve around of you, you are not the reason atheists dislike religion.
  reply report
  69
  alternate poetposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You still here bashing away !! and I thought GP had been promoted to bald-shortie at his own request ! tut tut I go away fro a few hours and the whole thing has fallen to pieces
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh yeh! Thanks for the reminder. I shall edit immediately.
  reply report
  68
  goldenpathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm too short for the world to revolve around me. Rather, it moves in spite of me.
  
  What's this discount thing? I must have missed something. I am a citizen like any other in the United States. I have absolutely no preferencial treatment for any status in a Church calling. It just doesn't happen - at least not in my faith. Part of our foundation is to serve the people and NOT to be served. The only discounts I'm aware of are the sale items at the grocery store.
  
  By the way, the "me" was intended as a joke. Wow, even a simple two-letter word is used against me. It's just two letters, not even in graphite but cyberspace. It contains no threat, attack or even physical paper in which to form an airplane to throw.
  
  The sun is out and it's spring! Let's all just get along! Put all religion and condescension aside on the forums and just celebrate the common foundation of the love of writing.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh - come on goldenpath. We have all seen enough of your "Woe is me" Oh Woe! Poor me - attacked again without provocation! By the dancing fools who do not see my wisdom and humbleness for teh true greatness that I think I am!" statements not to immediately see that as a joke.
  
  And honestly - People like you, would be more accurate.
  
  Yay! - no argument there. Like you - I am working on losing a few winter pounds. Quit smoking in September and - boy - did I put the pounds on this winter. Mountain biking for me.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Whatever about your me. I'm avoiding dumb drama these days, you can keep it.
  
  And oh yeah I forgot LDS has cleverly figured out a way to not have to pay their preachers. Not like typical christian churches. LOL
  
  But thanks for answering.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LSD has enlightened many souls.
  LDS also claims the enlightnment of many souls.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Whoops! LOL
  
  Thank you, Jerami. I'll fix that asap.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No you had it right the first time, no just kidding I think?
  I've done that my self.By accident
  reply report
13. 59
  mohitmisraposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I was an atheist and I hated being threatened.
  reply report
14. 86
  Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  A slightly loaded question don't you think?
  reply report
15. 66
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This theory, spoken in jest, actually seems right to me...
  reply report
16. 0
  riddle666posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  May be it's the nonsense sprouted by theists, especially the monotheistic ones.
  reply report
  57
  OutWestposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe it's a lack of responsibility on the atheists' part so they blame religion for everything.
  reply report
  0
  riddle666posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes yes the atheists always blame satan for all the wrongs.
  And Christians, Muslims or jews never killed on burned at stake for religion, all wild accusations by this atheists.
  reply report
17. 0
  Deepes Mindposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Atheists hate religion for one reason... A lot of the people that practice it. It has nothing to do with God directly (because the don't believe in a god or gods). It is the people who claim to believe one thing but act in a manner totally opposite of what they believe when they encounter anyone of differing beliefs. Religion (organized primarily) is the catalyst for a lot of things that happen in the world and history because an individualized philosophy has almost given way to the "mob mentality" of thinking. Society primarily has worked off of the premise that if enough people can agree on something then it's ok and must be correct and conveniently forget that a lie is a lie no matter how many people believe it.. If you doubt that, go speak to some of Bernie Madoff's clients
  reply report
59
tantrumposted 15 years ago
It's unhealthy !

Hi sneak !!
reply report
1. 0
  sneakorocksolidposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Tantrum! Hows our star?
  reply report
61
Colebabieposted 15 years ago
A lot of people hate religion. Or other's religions. I wouldn't say atheists are one of them.
reply report
1. 0
  sneakorocksolidposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  ok.
  reply report
60
Hokeyposted 15 years ago
Thank God I'm a Buddhist.

reply report
1. 59
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Free Will
  reply report
61
Ohmaposted 15 years ago
I would not say that they hate religion. I think they just hate being treated like there is something wrong with them because they choose not to believe.
reply report
1. 58
  Nik Aberleposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I second this statement.
  reply report
60
Pandoras Boxposted 15 years ago
I don't hate religion or the religious. I am not satisfied with having religious viewpoints legally imposed on the rest of us, and I am not content with seeing the great promise our country started out with fade away due to religious influence.
reply report
1. 58
  Nik Aberleposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Isn't it funny how nowadays everyone is claiming that America is a christian nation when in fact the majority of the founding fathers believed religion to be a very bad thing when mixed with government.
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Isn't even funnier that 50 years ago no one in their right mind would say that about the Founding Fathers. Of course history can be rewritten many times over.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  True but the original documents speak for themselves.
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You mean documents like the Jefferson Bible?
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Letters, journals, notes... Lots of stuff Mr. Dent, lots and lots of personal paper documents.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Shhh! Texas finally figured that out, so now they're rewriting history and dumping Jefferson altogether. I'm hoping they don't look too closely at the others, or out will go several more!
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And let me say Welcome to Hubpages, Nik.
  reply report
  61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Being Christian and opposing the establishment of a state religion are not mutually exclusive.
  reply report
  66
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed (and well said)
  reply report
71
Cagsilposted 15 years ago
What do you think has driven atheists to hate religion?

I wouldn't use the word "hate", simply because many people, including atheists, see "religion" as dangerous and unhealthy.

They see it happening every time a religious person brings up or mentions "GOD" or personal "GOD" or your "GOD" or whatever "GOD" and it drives them to bring it to religious folks that- the belief they have formed was based on a lie.

Many refuse to accept it, because of their religious teaching.

However, after a thorough test of the doctrines of religion, it becomes evident the atheists are on to something. As a tester of those doctrines, I agree. However, I don't belong to any religion.

Just my thoughts on the topic.
reply report
1. 60
  brianzenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How do you feel about non-christian religions if I may ask?
  reply report
  71
  Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What about them? As long as it is not a mystical "GOD" concept, I don't much care. There beliefs will at least be bound to reality at least and that's better than paying homage to nothing or something imaginary in some other realm of supposed existence.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But thats the point dear boy, your other beliefs bound in reality are nothing and they simply will not help you in time of need, secure an afterlife, offer hope in the dreariest of situations. You are totally alone with your belief, whatever it is, if it is not the jewish historical god then that persons belief is vapor. And i know this hurts to hear it again but how many times must christians not lie and tell the truth to questions such as these. Simply put, if you do not want to hear it, do not ask. Athiests only hate because their belief does not stop them from hating, killing, murder, stealing.. if they can find a reason to have sex with a mans wife or daughter or both they will justify themselves. Not saying christians are perfect but i am willing to say, more of us than you think are above all these things because we believe in a centuries old god, bound up and tied in with the jewish history through magnificent signs and wonders and truths and goodness and glory and none other god can do that. So don't ask, go into forums you athiests feel more comfy in.
  
  I am brother yochanan and i am peaceful christian who knows god very well. God loves you inspite of you sarcasms and denials but he is a god of judgment because he hates sin, it destroys lives and ruins people and makes society unstable! How do i know this? I just said it, i know god very well.
  reply report
2. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry to interrupt the NTK factory workers, but am curious as to which/what 'tests' were prescribed ( literally or figuratively ) and what were the results of the present, living, 7+ billion organic priori surveyed. If you would be so kind and humane, as to indulge this non-atheist & non-theist, please.
  
  Thanks so much.
  reply report
56
foreignpressposted 15 years ago
It's a form of self-hate. Christianity, for example, teaches that you should love yourself as well as others. This is not the same as being prideful. Instead, it's to love who you are. Obviously, those who have a hard time with feeling good about themselves will choose atheism. An atheistic philosophy is like hiding in the shadows and avoiding the light of being spiritually open and free.
Atheism is also another form of anger at the world. After all, how can anyone love God when there is so much hunger, death, and abuse on this planet? But God gave us a mind and a free will. He is more concerned with everlasting life than with day-to-day affairs of a very troubled flock. What's interesting is that we have the power to create a utopia on this planet -- a heaven on earth, you might say. But we are too spiritually weak to overcome the powers of Satan who, at present, rules this planet.
reply report
1. 60
  brianzenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Read my stuff and ask me whatever you like, I see things differently all of the time, I believe most people have just responded to stimuli and conditioning. And really cannot choose until they are rid of those conditions.
  reply report
2. 71
  Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You're funny!
  reply report
  60
  brianzenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think they really believe that stuff and that is not meant to sound critical but how does that happen, going from religious to "here comes the devil?"
  reply report
3. 86
  Marisa Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think the opposite is true. It's often those who lack self-confidence or self-belief that feel the need to seek out religion to give some meaning to their life. Atheists tend to be fairly strong-willed people who don't feel the need of a mental crutch.
  
  An atheist who didn't love humanity would have a hard time finding any meaning in existence, because as far as they're concerned, that's all their is.
  reply report
  0
  wordscribe41posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well said. I don't HATE religion at all. I do, however hate the flyers and door to door praise the Lording... I think it can't be said better than Marisa.
  reply report
  38
  World Marketingposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree
  reply report
  56
  foreignpressposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Those of you who have an atheistic bent need to try an exercise: Sit back, relax, take a deep breath, and think to long ago when you were very young. Let the thoughts come slowly. Allow them to merge into your conscious being. Remember the smells, sounds, and feelings that cascaded into a small and wondrous child. At this point, you will recognize an event that turned you into an atheist. It might seem small and insignificant -- like seeing a spider gobble a fly. But it was this negative experience that transformed you. The good news is that what has been done can be undone.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  True. Religious indoctrination can be undone by simply using ones brain to think.
  reply report
4. 55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I couldn't help but notice the contradiction in this post with another post recently written from another thread. There is no need to produce the author of that particular post as the post speaks volumes to the question posed here. For your enjoyment, here are some snippets:
  
  So, I wonder what has driven Christians to hate everything non-Christian?
  reply report
  38
  World Marketingposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I wonder too. hummmm
  reply report
  59
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Fear of the Truth.
  
  No God. No. Nothing.
  reply report
5. 0
  StormRyderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This statement was about as far off the mark as any I have read to this point on any of the forums. You really don't understand people in general do you?
  reply report
60
brianzenposted 15 years ago
For the record I actually do believe that there probably is a God or a creator just that nobody has any clue about the truth of it, not any religion or bible or anything like that. And there might even be a Devil of sorts or demons etc. just the same nobody actually has the answers no matter what they believe or have been told.
reply report
1. 0
  sneakorocksolidposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree!
  reply report
  60
  brianzenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you, and ironic I just read your stuff. (seriously)
  reply report
  0
  sneakorocksolidposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I hope I didn't scare you off.
  reply report
  60
  brianzenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No it was cool
  reply report
2. 71
  Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That sounds like Plato's philosophy that man can never know reality.
  
  That's a shame.
  reply report
  60
  brianzenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I feel like we are fleas on a marble just guessing and theorizing about the infinite, Not shameful, just another way to be open to discovery
  reply report
  71
  Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Believe it or not, your statement comes across as not giving credit where credit is due. There happens to be much we've already learned and still so much more to go.
  
  You're dismissing the power and potential of humanity because you choose to fear the unknown. I understand about being open to it, but there happens to be no logical reason for you to think that humans are the only life form with what we describe as conscious, in any universe, never mind, just ours.
  
  Just because we are the only ones(conscious), so far. When and IF we run across another conscious species, will be the test of our civilization. Are you open to realize that there could be other Humans, just like Us, less or even more advanced than us, somewhere else?
  
  Let's keep it real.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Very true, and not just our power for good, but our power for bad. When one realizes that there is no god in charge to intervene, to make things right, to save the world, one takes a higher level of interest and active participation in their own lives and in the world at large.
  reply report
  61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Or they assume they're God, make their own rules, and if theyp[re powerful enough, they can make society in their image. Lenin and Stalin tried that.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  As did the Pope. Sex with little boys? Hmm Hmm - OK with Catholics? Yes indeed. Hide it and pay to cover it up. Never happened actually.
  
  Good for you Valerie. Standing up for sex with children like that. Much, much better than Lenin or Stalin. Justifies your beliefs no end actually. Proves it is not superstition actually. Must be a god probably - seeing as you catholics are above reproach. Did not happen,. No sirree.
  
  Very, very well done.
  reply report
  59
  h.a.borcichposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  yep - that is what I got out of her post I think you not only twisted her words and meaning, but cultivated words that weren't there. Holly
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not really Holly. I appreciate it might be hard for you to understand but attacking atheism by pointing a finger at Lenin and saying that religion is better is utter garbage - Why?
  
  Because of the past history of the church which includes a great deal of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests.
  
  Do you ever read any newspapers? still going on to this day.
  
  But - I see you defending this institution. Why is that?
  
  OK to bring up Lenin - not OK to bring up thousands of years of abuses by the church.
  
  Are we seeing the double standard yet?
  
  Never really understood the, "It is OK to ignore the past abuses of the church because Lenin killed people," argument.
  
  Perhaps you could explain that to me?
  reply report
  59
  h.a.borcichposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Mark,
  Her post contained NOTHING about abuses by priests yet you posted as though she did and what YOU thought her position on it might have been which made your post more of a tangent. Had you focused on addressing her point I would be reading a debate instead.
  Yes I read newspapers everyday.
  I am not defending abuses of children by anyone especially any clergy. To assume I am ok with it on your part is another jaunt into mind reading. I am not seeing a double standard - maybe your illusion of one. If you knew anything about me you would know I am apalled by any child abuse and am far from impressed with the catholic church. But you see me as a christian and war immeadiately on a generalization you hold.
  I am just trying to debate on what is said rather than what is assumed. Or did you post just looking for argument?
  Holly
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Quite right.
  
  Her posts contained nothing about abuses by the church and priests. It did - on the other hand - include an attack on atheism because of the actions of Stalin.
  
  Are we seeing the double standards yet? Are we understanding why I bought that up as a counter?
  
  Are we getting why this is hypocrisy at it's finest?
  
  And - in keeping with the topic - one of the many, many reasons I personally despise your religion.
  
  I did not see you attacking her for bringing Stalin into the discussion.
  
  Why is that?
  reply report
  59
  h.a.borcichposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for the civility Mark - it is appreciated.
  Point blank on Stalin...In all honesty, I am not familiar enough with that to touch it Call it ignorance if you will, I just simply am not equipped to participate in that discusssion. Rather than go off halfcocked and be a fool, I merely watch the debate and try to learn when I am clueless.
  I do clearly understand that you hate and despise religion, and I am not trying to convert you or judge you for your view. I am just standing my ground to have my own view and to watch what could be an interesting and educating thread.
  Holly
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That doesn't alter the fact that you happily call me out for suggesting that anyone who defends the Catholic church must support their past behavior. Or - at the least - as in Valerie's case - pretend it did not happen or is not important. Yet you ignore her bringing Stalin in as an argument in favor of religion.
  
  I am confused. What exactly are you standing your ground on?
  report
  59
  h.a.borcichposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree Valerie is in support of the catholic church. But that does not imply that she agrees to everything it has done for thousands of years. i.e. I think modern medicine has helped many people, but I know it has a history too. I can't say every dr who ever lived thinks it was great to forcibly experiment on people. To say every dr is for such practices by simply being a dr would be a misguided genteralization.
  I did not ignore the Stalin point. I explained I am not knowledgable enough to debate it, but rather my silence on it is watching it unfold and learning. What do you think I should have done?
  Just for the record, I have not happily called you out. I am just a fellow hubber trying to stay focused on what could be a great thread. I ask questions, I give input where I feel I can contribute, and I am trying to be part of a civil debate is all.
  I am standing for the right to have and view differing perspectives. You have your view on things, you don't need to convolute someone else's view to maintain your own. You want to make a point and I want to hear it. Making all the assumptions and mind reading not only altered Valerie's thought, but skewed your own. Holly
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How convenient for you to not understand about Stalin and think that my bringing up the ongoing child abuse by the Catholics is worth calling out and not relevant to a thread entitled, "What do you think has driven atheists to hate religion?"
  
  So - What were Valerie's thoughts exactly?
  
  Seeing as it was a reference to Stalin - of whom you have never heard and do not feel qualified to contribute about?
  
  Or are you just looking for a fight?
  report
  59
  h.a.borcichposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Mark,
  I should call out Valerie because I am not versed in Stalin? Many people aren't - could have been an opportunity to shed some light on your part. It isn't convienient - but it is one of many things I do not fully know about. I doubt anyone on hubpages knows everything about everything.
  Face it Mark - you are looking for a fight - to hell with an opportunity to share your view with someone who is trying to see your point. Generalize me all you want. Read words in someones post that aren't there. Whatever. If you really wanted to debate - you might have helped me learn. Just because I did not understand Stalin does not make it right that you assume pervert priests appear from her post.
  I took her post at face value with the words she posted. Rewriting it, adding your assumptions and additional words apparently gave you the right to blindside her and I. How convienient for you. Holly
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No Holly.
  
  I was making a point. You are the one looking for a fight. And the point I was making was the Valerie was and is defending a disgusting institution that ritually, sexually abuses children.
  
  So - what was the thought Valerie was making again? That I interrupted? Not that you know anything about Stalin and therefore do not know the thought she was making.
  
  You are not interested in my view. Every time I tell you that your ridiculous beliefs are irrational and hate filled - you accuse me of attacking you.
  report
  59
  h.a.borcichposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Mark,
  It appears you so badly wanted to make a point that you took Valerie's admission of being a catholic and made her into someone who advocates priests committing sexual abuse.
  That you find it funny I can admit I do not know as much about Stalin as you - might have something to do with that bully imagine thing going on. I haven't studied auto mechanics either. HAHAHAHA
  I do not have to renounce my views to gain an understanding of someone else's position. That I tried to understand your point, you fault me. That I don't fully know about Stalin - you laugh at me. Now I could care less what your point of view is - if it makes you like that - keep it. Holly
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No I did not laugh at you. I noticed how convenient it was that you have never heard of Stalin and did not need to attack Valerie for bringing that up, but DID feel the need to attack me for pointing out that the Catholic church that she (and you) defend is responsible for child abuse.
  
  And accuse me of subverting the thought she was expressing when she bought Stalin into the discussion.
  
  But - I think you have done an adequate job of explaining why atheists hate religion.
  
  Thanks.
  report
  59
  h.a.borcichposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There is a difference between having heard of someone and being versed in that person. I am not versed, but have heard of him. Again - you change the meaning with the slight of type.
  You claim believers "like me" are too dang ignorant to ask questions, but when one is asked - all you can do is find fault.
  Again - keep changing words and you will always evade the matter that really was up for discussion. Holly
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And still you attack me. Sorry that you are incapable of finding out what reference Valerie was making - yet still seem to be happy to attack me for bringing in the catholic sexual abuse of children into the discussion and happy to defend Valerie's right to bring Stalin in.
  
  What question was it you asked again? While you are "standing your ground"?
  report
  0
  JoelMcLendonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It appears to be an attack to me.
  You seem to think it is OK for you to voice your opinions but don't allow others to.
  Ask yourself what's wrong with your thinking?
  Your ego appears very large. (Not saying it is. It's just seems that way)
  report
  61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If you took a look at real Catholic teaching, you'd know that any and all sex outside of marriage is wrong, especially if it involves abuse and/or a violation of a vow of celibacy.
  
  I am not ingoring past of current abuses. The religion itself is fine. That people violate their religion's teachings especially while claiming to uphold them is evil. In fact, the bible said as much, repeatedly.
  
  Now atheism offers absolutely no higher moral authority than humanity. Where does atheism specifically prohibit any of the behaviors you decry in religious people? it doesn't. Rather, there are no rules save for what people make up as we go along.
  reply report
  66
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This is not true, to be honest. Atheism comes in many different forms. There is a long tradition within Western philosophy, and particularly modern philosophy, that asserts that the Good and its pursuit simply are intrinsically things which ought to be sought. Not all atheists would express what they believe in this way. No doubt not all atheists actually believe that. But the fact is that many atheists do simply believe that the Golden Rule, for example, simply is right... without offering a reason why.
  reply report
  61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And the Golden Rule is found, in a number of variations, in religious scriptures. That being said, assuming that all humans are equal, if one atheist believes in the Golden Rule and another disagrees, who's right, and by what authority?
  
  To believe in it just because it's right and not try to find any reason why takes blind faith. I mean, how do you really know?
  reply report
  66
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I don't really know lots of things. I don't really know that I am sitting on this chair.
  
  I am saying, I guess, that the position of certain atheist moral philosophers (I'm not talking about Dawkins or any of that crowd, many of whom wouldn't know a philosophical argument if it hit them in the head) is that, frankly, morality (ie common decency, do not harm others for no good reason) has to be taken on faith, but, mind you, much of what we believe has to be taken on faith. Do you KNOW you are awake right now, or in fact dreaming. Usually we go with what *seems* right. And there is ultimately very little way around that.
  
  The point is, I guess, that for me, morality (not talking about sex here, by the way, hope you realize) has to be taken on faith. You could say that it should be backed up by a higher authority. But then THAT has to be taken on faith. So we are in the same boat. It's just I happen to think that Christianity is logically inconsistent with itself.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The same way religions did, more or less. Philosophy of the time.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well we did make up the rules of religion.
  reply report
  77
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I doubt if Stalin/Lenin thought something like that. Both of them did the job of "pissing people off". More rational any person becomes more they want to control other people(irrespective of religious/non-religious belief),that's what they tried to do just like many other religious leaders/kings. Why Jesus sells more than Lenin/Stalin ? Simple, he managed to hit in the area of people where Lenin/Stalin didn't managed to hit. If the rules are made in society to piss people off then regardless of belief it gets flushed.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Religion didn't stop them so what's the difference? There will always be control freaks either way.
  reply report
3. 65
  Daniel Carterposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Which is where I've landed also. Couldn't agree with you more, Brian.
  reply report
60
brianzenposted 15 years ago
And plato said we mat only believe what we see, not the same thing at all.
reply report
1. 60
  brianzenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "may" not mat...
  reply report
2. 71
  Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, Plato put forth that the ordinary man is not responsible for not knowing reality. Reality is not known until you know the forms, which only comes from many, many years of advanced education(educated elite).
  
  Plato's philosophy is one cause for the so-called "authority" was presently have in place in many places around the world.
  
  His unique outlook was about maintaining control, others over people, just like Religion. There cannot be any responsibility of any individual, because each is not responsible for knowing reality.
  
  This defeats the actual definition of reality as we have today. And, shows why there are so many people out and about who are acting as if they have no responsibility whatsoever.
  reply report
59
Jeramiposted 15 years ago
Why do Atheists hate religion?
I don't think that hate is the right word but will do.
"Everyone" has a displeasure for things that does not fit in their system of doing things.
I might believe that I have my beliefs under controll then someone else comes up with another "fact" that I simply do not have room for in such a confined space.
I might get angry when they make me rearrange everything that I believe just to include something new.

That is just more work than I want my mind to have to endure.
I am not talking about ME but everyone that doesn't believe the way I do.
JUST KIDDING (about the everyone else part anyway)
I know that I don't like having to rethink..
It was all I could do to do it the first time..No redo's Please.
reply report
61
Valerie Fposted 15 years ago
I would not say that atheists in general hate religion. Some do, but some don't. I don't believe all atheists believe religious people can't think for themselves. That would take as much blind faith and judgmentalism as some accuse religious people of having. I don't think atheists in general regard religion as "dangerous" or "unhealthy."

Rather, in a nutshell, I believe that the intelligent atheist respects religion, but just simply doesn't agree with it. They understand that just because it doesn't make sense to them doesn't mean it couldn't possibly make sense to others.

Hatred is a different matter entirely. Why some atheists hate religion, I think, boils down to the same reasons other people hate. Grudges and/or prejudice.
reply report
1. 60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think any atheists respect religion. That'd be intellectually dishonest. They may respect peoples' right to it, they may respect the power of it, but it's quite a stretch to say "the intelligent atheist respects religion."
  reply report
  61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  They respect religion just as they respect differing points of view. There's nothing intellectually dishonest about that. Respect is not the same as agreement.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, there is a difference, atheists understand that the beliefs of religion are nothing more than myths and superstitions, hence it would be intellectually dishonest to respect them if believers are to claim they are part of our reality. BIG difference.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  They respect others' right to their own religious viewpoints, not so much the viewpoints themselves. If an atheist thinks religion is false, how could he respect it? He doesn't respect it he respects your right to it, certain aspects of it or effects of it on certain people, he doesn't respect that which he knows is false. Do you respect Russell's Teapot? Of course not because you know it's false.
  
  I'll grant you that some atheists are more polite than others, and some are less interested than others, and some are more passionate than others, but I don't think any HONESTLY respect that which they know is false.
  reply report
  61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  But it's intellectually dishonest to "know" there's no such thing as God.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Given all the facts, it's intellectually dishonest to think there's any reason to believe there is one.
  reply report
2. 55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sure they do, they see how unhealthy and dangerous religion is every day when believers thank their gods for their abundance while tens of thousands starve to death in abject poverty, as just one example of many.
  
  You can't respect an ideology that is hellbent on destroying mankind.
  
  Religions teach hate, prejudice, oppression, racism, ignorance and violence, hence atheists despise these things taught by religions.
  reply report
  61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You can't honestly say that about all religion and expect me to take that seriously. First off, all it takes to prove a generalization wrong is one exception. As there are a number of religions that preach the salvation rather than destruction of humanity, your suggestion that religion is an ideology "hellbent on destroying mankind" is proven by their very existence to be false. Secondly, uttering such flagrant and false generalizations reveals your own irrational prejudices against the tendency most people have to see the same evidence you see and come to different conclusions about God's existence.
  
  Faith in God also happense to be very important to a lot of people, important enough that any lack of respect for their ideology is about the same as if someone insulted the person you love the very most to your face. If you cannot respect that, you have no place in a respectful discussion on different beliefs.
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Very well put
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And some people believe that "preaching salvation" is destructive in and of itself.
  reply report
  61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Fair enough, but others believe that the suppression or religious freedom is even more destructive.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Nobody wants to suppress religious rights or practices.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Prayers in public schools???
  
  {Joining hands in a circle and praying 'OUTLOUD' together as a community, in Public Schools???} is that clearer Mark?
  
  Religious symbols on Government lawns at Christmas time...
  
  Religious symbols on the walls of Government buildings, schools...
  The attempts to remove 'In God we trust' from the currency of the realm...and 'One Nation under God' from the Pledge of Alligence...
  
  There are more examples.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh - I see what you mean Mikel. No doubt it is OK to sacrifice Goats in school though?
  
  Religion in Government? Prolly not a great idea huh? Prolly a good idea to separate them huh?
  
  How is this stopping your religious rights exactly?
  
  I mean - you can prey and spend all your money (what the illegal immigrants didn't steal) on killing christmas trees - can't you?
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm kinda behind here, because I have resolved not to spend so much time in the forums anymore, and so have not visited this thread in apparently about four weeks.
  
  Mikel come on. Get real.
  
  In no way does the separation of church and state suppress anybody's religious beliefs or practices.
  reply report
79
thisisoliposted 15 years ago
I agree with Pandoras Box, it is hard to respect a fairytale.

My view is that most Atheists do not hate religion, jsut as many religious people don't hate Atheism. It is merely a viewpoint on the existance of God.

I personally don't hate religion, but I do strongly disagree with it, and what it does to people.

Hate is a much too emotional word for something which I dismissed a long time ago.
reply report
38
lilly_densposted 15 years ago
maybe something really bad happened in their lives and discarded the thought that God exists. or maybe, because of the people who believe in God
reply report
58
Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years ago
I like Christians...

Taste like chicken.
reply report
1. 65
  Daniel Carterposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  So do atheists. More similar than they want to believe, I guess...
  reply report
  58
  Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hmmmmmmmm,
  
  May have to expand the menu
  reply report
65
Daniel Carterposted 15 years ago
I think they hate the sales tactics and the hypocrisy about "God's love" when it all feels like condemnation and hate. And I agree with that attitude. That's the way it's always felt to me, and I grew in a very conservative, religious home.
reply report
79
AEvansposted 15 years ago
I believe that Atheists disagree with religion because we are to busy pushing religion on them, if we would act like we are suppose to then there could be a possibility that they we have a slight chance of them listening. WWJD? As a Christian I always listen to there point of views and respect what they believe. Maybe many of us should try doing the same thing, you get more with honey then you do with salt.
reply report
0
Madame Xposted 15 years ago
They're mad at God
reply report
1. 55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Which one?
  
  And for the record, why don't you love Allah?
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There is only one.
  
  Why do you assume I don't?
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That would only demonstrate you are ignorant to the many other gods purported to exist by billions of other people.
  
  Do you love Allah? Do you know he is supposed to be the one and only god who supplanted Jesus?
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Too funny.
  reply report
  71
  Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed!
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How so?
  reply report
0
Madame Xposted 15 years ago
Ignorant, you say?

HA HA

There is only one God with many names.

Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh, Krishna, Govinda, Buddha, Ganesha, Vishnu, Shiva, Hanuman, Rama, Anandi Ma, Amritanandamayi, Brahma, Muktananda, Chidvilasananda, Kali, Yogananda, Jyoteshwari, Yukteshwar, Sita, Parvati, Rabindranath, Nityananda, Ramakrishna . . .

In Hinduism there are chants of the 1008 names of God.

Sorry I can't remember them all by heart
reply report
1. 55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, ignorant. HA HA
  
  One small thing you may have left out is the fact that those many gods are not one god with many names, they are many gods with their own name and their own sets of doctrines that contradict the other gods. You conveniently forgot about that.
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, they are one God with many names.
  
  There is only one God.
  
  There are many different needs of many different followers. Each culture has in their history and experience a form of God that resonates with them. However, ALL cultures have in their traditions (for lack of a better term) that God is infinite. Infinite means everything. So there is nothing that God is not. To assume that He incarnated only once, for only one culture, is to assume He is finite. If he is finite then he's not almighty because there is something outside of God.
  reply report
  67
  TheGlassSpiderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Brava! I couldn't have said it better myself.
  
  If atheists hate religions, then I would assume (perhaps because I'm egocentric LOL) that it's for the same reasons I hate religions: historically the people running religions have been warmongering, hateful, destructive thieves who seem to think that they have the right to decide how everyone should live.
  
  Having said that, I consider that God and religion are two completely different things.
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Very astute
  reply report
  67
  TheGlassSpiderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks
  
  Have you read Isis Unveiled?
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No. Tell me more about it?
  reply report
  67
  TheGlassSpiderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I haven't finished it yet because it's ENORMOUS...but it's by Madame Blavatsky and it's basically an incredibly in-depth comparison of the religions and philosophies of the world. I think you would enjoy it if you can get past how dryly written it is--it's basically a textbook.
  
  You know what...Let me double check...I might have a PDF version of it I can send you...
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That would be great! But you can just send the URL if it gets too complicated. Thanks
  reply report
  67
  TheGlassSpiderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well, crap! It seems I have most everything she's written EXCEPT Isis in PDF format...However, I DO have The Secret Doctrine...which if you were taking classes with her, she would make you read first.
  
  I don't have any URLs for these things...I just have the PDFs stored on my computer.
  reply report
  67
  TheGlassSpiderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You've got mail And hopefully more on the way
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Don't know which god you worship, but the god of the christian bible never tolerated any other gods, or believers of any other gods either for that matter.
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't say there were other gods. Just one with many names
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well god in the bible liked to slew the followers of his other personalities. Or pseudonyms, if you prefer.
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  So? What's your point?
  reply report
  67
  TheGlassSpiderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think it's pretty clear that Madame X is not dealing with the Bible...or at least not SOLELY the Bible.
  
  That's one of my pet peeves. Why does everyone assume that "believers" believe the same thing? The atheists are quick to point out that there are "millions of denominations who can't agree" but can't seem to figure out that the people here represent a WIDE range of beliefs. They assume we're all Bible-toting fundamentalists when it's my understanding that that particular group is one of the SMALLEST percentage of believers that exists. Go figure.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Actually it's not clear, especially when people claim they are all one and the same.
  reply report
  67
  TheGlassSpiderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Actually...that's *exactly* what makes it clear that Madame X is not dealing solely with the Bible.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No it doesn't. I hear christians all the time stating these sort of compromised beliefs. Half of their beliefs come from the bible and half of the bible they throw out.
  reply report
  67
  TheGlassSpiderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What are you not getting about the words "not dealing SOLELY with the Bible"? It is OBVIOUS that Madame X is not dealing with a belief system that consists of the Bible ALONE. There IS more than one belief system out there, you know, and she's already mentioned Hinduism.
  
  Again...I don't understand why atheists insist on lumping all "believers" into the same pigeonhole. It doesn't work.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  In the western civilization most "believers" are christians of some sort. So your saying Madame X doesn't believe in christianity or the christian bible.
  
  Great! If you read what I wrote you'll notice that I never said she did, and specifically said that I didn't know what she believed. All she had to do was reply back that she didn't believe in the bible. She chose to say "So?" and I dropped the subject at that.
  
  Thanks for clearing it all up though. Now that I know she isn't a christian and doesn't believe in the christian bible, and can't speak so well for herself, I won't bring up biblical points with her again.
  reply report
  67
  TheGlassSpiderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Why would you make it a point to say that the Biblical God doesn't like people worshiping other "pseudonyms" if you're not assuming that she worships the Biblical God?
  
  Once again, since you seem to have some problem reading, maybe the third time will be the charm: It is obvious that whatever Madame X's beliefs are, they are not centered around the Bible alone--she said as much herself. You or I do NOT know what her entire belief system is, and so neither of us should make generalizations--which is really the point that you are so creatively side-stepping.
  
  The only reason I'm commenting is because like I said this pigeonholing of believers is a pet peeve of mine--I don't see why people can't just deal with people as individuals instead of making grand, sweeping generalizations. Aren't we smart enough to know that "believer" could mean a million different things? Really...if you're going to argue with what someone believes, shouldn't you know WHAT they believe first? I mean...maybe just ask them so you can make coherent arguments at least?
  
  Anyway, I'm sure if Madame X were still here, she'd be quite capable of speaking for herself.
  report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I did in the original post. Well I didn't actually because it can be considered rude to demand to know what someone's religious beliefs are. What I said was something like "I don't know what your beliefs are, but the biblical god liked to kill followers of other gods." To which she replied something about all gods being one and the same. So I responded that in that case, the biblical god liked to kill followers of his other personalities, or pseudonyms if that was how she saw it.
  
  To which she replied "So," and I dropped the subject, until you felt a need to jump in and accuse me of assuming what other peoples' beliefs were.
  
  This is stupid, read what was written before you assume things.
  report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Shouldn't believers believe the same thing? How many different and contradictory gods and doctrines should believers believe?
  
  Doesn't that negate the entire concept of one god?
  reply report
  67
  TheGlassSpiderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It's none of MY or YOUR business what different believers believe, and I'm certainly not going to presume to make such an idiotic statement as "all believers should believe the same thing." What a load of tripe.
  
  Unlike you, I am not afraid of the fact that some people think differently than I do. You are free to believe what you want, and I am free to believe what I want, and she is free to believe what she wants...and what you and she believe doesn't bother me, or change me, in the slightest.
  
  IF there IS one God, my beliefs or your beliefs or Joe Blow's beliefs will never change that fact. And IF there isn't...the result is the same.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Are you saying it's idiotic to believe in one god and one message for all people, or are you saying it's idiotic to believe in one god with many conflicting and contradicting messages? Are you missing the point here?
  
  Yes, you have missed the point, completely. This isn't a matter of what I think or what you think, it is a matter of ONE god with ONE message for all mankind.
  
  The result would be that all religions are false, which is not the same at all.
  reply report
  61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That's ridiculous. Just because there may be only one God doesn't mean people can't have a wide variety of beliefs and opinions about God. There is only one you, assuming you even exist, and that doesn't keep people from having differences of opinion or holding contrarty beliefs about you.
  reply report
  67
  TheGlassSpiderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Beautifully stated. Brava.
  reply report
  59
  h.a.borcichposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Valerie, long time no see btw! I agree with you whole heartedly on this Holly
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That is a serious problem, one which should easily demonstrate that all religions are false or that only one religion may be right and all the others wrong.
  
  You seem to be missing the point here also, that if there were one god, he would provide messages of morality, ethics, doctrines and even a consistent story of creation.
  
  Of course, with all the religions today, there are a wide variety of religious beliefs sporting conflicting and contradicting messages and stories of creation. In fact, most of these religions teach NOT to follow the other religions.
  
  You don't see that as contradictory to a ONE god concept?
  
  So, you're comparing me to a god? You can't do that considering I don't provide morals, ethics and creation stories for you to believe, nor do I demand you worship and obey me.
  
  Very bad comparison, Valerie.
  reply report
  61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You are making a pretty huge assumption about how God would behave.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No, it's just you missing the point entirely.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  So what? That does not account for the contradictory messages each person would receive from ONE god. In other words, ONE god ONE message for all.
  
  In other words, each culture had their own set of myths and superstitions.
  
  You didn't explain the problem of contradictory doctrines and messages. No one asked about the finite or infinite.
  reply report
  86
  Marisa Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Why do you say that's a fact? Can you prove it?
  
  All scriptures are human interpretations of the "word of God". So it's just as likely there IS only one God, and all the different sets of doctrines and names are human misunderstandings of Him.
  
  Or, of course, they might all be imagination...
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Eh I don't know, Marisa. When you look at the development of the whole thing, it's easy to see where the god(s) concept started. Ignorance about the world. From there one built on another, which built on another, which built on another on down the line. People still want to believe in it because they think it's a nice story.
  
  I mean sure you could say all the written testimonies are just man's skewed versions of the truth of god, which one way or another they certainly are, but then what do you really have left? A concept conceived by early man to explain things they didn't understand. That's the staying power of it.
  
  If it doesn't explain something it's meaningless. (I believe in a god but reject all the known religions.) If all the explanations (interpretations) given are counted as meaningless there's nothing left but a nice story that we as a species haven't yet learned to put aside.
  
  We can either invent new explanations, as many do attempt and which will no doubt also be false, or we can say god's unknowable which is pretty much useless even if it is true, or we can accept the facts of the situation and realize that there simply is no reason to believe in a god. Or of course we can cling to the old religions in the face of all reason.
  
  I realize that we don't have all the answers, and probably never will, but that's not a reason to believe in a god. Not arguing with you, I always respect your posts, just sharing my thoughts.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How could they all be mere misunderstandings when the god messages are conflicting and contradictory, where one religion forbids their flocks to follow any other religion on pain of eternal hellfire suffering?
  
  How can the vast majority of creation stories from each religion be so grossly misunderstood as to be so completely different from each other. One simply has to look at the doctrines and stories of each religion to see there couldn't possibly be confusion or misunderstandings.
  reply report
60
C.V.Rajanposted 15 years ago
Human Egotism has several avenues.

"I know better" is one expression of egotism. Atheists believe so. Unfortunately, several believers too say so!
reply report
1. 71
  Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Don't mistake Ego for true understanding. Some actually have true understanding and NONE of them are of the religious view sort.
  
  Those who believe in a mystical "GOD" of any sort is foolish to do so, because they are under an outside authority other than self.
  
  It is anti-life, as described in my last post.
  
  It's not EGO, as you would believe. There are true facts about life, for which, people should not be blindly ignorant to. Plain and simple.
  
  Interesting that you said that though.
  reply report
71
Cagsilposted 15 years ago
All mystical religions that believe in the "GOD" concept are based on the exact same 3 doctrines.

(a) selfless in life(undefined)
(b) desire oppression in life(undefined)
(c) belief in "GOD" during life(undefined- 'GOD')

Otherwise, the differences are in the further doctrines added, to exercise more control over people.

Each of the above doctrines were tested and FAILED to be attainable.

Doctrine (a) selfless in life - the literal taking of this is anti-life.

Doctrine (b) desire oppression in life - the literal taking of this is anti-life.

Doctrine (c) belief in "GOD" during life - the ideology of "GOD" is a man made concept and should be realized as one of mans' mistakes, simply because belief cannot be made 100% proof positive. And, believing in something that supposedly lives in another realm other than the one we live in is anti-life, because you're not focused on your life here and now.

Just my thoughts.
reply report
77
skyfireposted 15 years ago
There are many unsolved mysteries and i don't want to get worked up to solve them so my religious book { insert religious book name} answers in general some question and it lets me escape from skepticism and rational thoughts, hence i hate atheist and i prefer to call atheism as religion. I can't answer unsolved mysteries so i prefer {insert religion here}.Generalization & credit to creator saves lot of my time from being a skeptic also gives me some time to find love/moral support by invoking prayers to {insert imaginary friend name} hence i prefer this {insert religion here}.I don't know what is behind evolution and formation of universe, but my {insert religious book name here} answers this by crediting it to some creator and his son/brother and this solves my problem. Wari na, atheists are wasting their time by not praying.
reply report
0
sneakorocksolidposted 15 years ago
Congress shall make no law repecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
reply report
1. 0
  SirDentposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  So it doesn't really say "Separation of Church and State?"
  reply report
  0
  sneakorocksolidposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No and I think it reads that the government can't declare a official national religion. How you doing Sir dent?
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I am doing very well Sneakor. How about yourself?
  reply report
  0
  sneakorocksolidposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not bad thanks!
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That would be like declaring Christianity as the official religion and forcing everyone to live by the Bible wouldn't it?
  
  Isn't that what they did in Britain a few hundred years ago?
  reply report
  59
  Disappearingheadposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes Henry VIII fell out with the Pope because he refused to annul Henry's marrage to Catherine of Aragon. She failed to bear him a son, so saw this as grounds for divorce. The Pope wouldn't have it ,so Henry said 'Stuff that for a game of soldiers' and set himself up as the head of the Church of England. This then became the official state religion to this day, and Her Britannic Majesty Elizabeth II is still the head of the church.
  
  As the monarch, she also has the title of Defender of the Faith and is duty bound to defend Christian beliefs against athieism and other religious beliefs. However it's thought that Charles is not keen on retaining this title when he becomes King. We might then see a separation of church and state.
  reply report
  61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, the "defender of the faith" role was not to defend Christianity against ahteism and other beliefs, but to protect the Church of England from Catholicism.
  reply report
59
Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years ago
I don't think all atheists hate religion, some of them simply dismiss it and go on, while others really do detest it! In fact, many atheists probably find religions as merely humorous simple-minded thoughts, and a good source to poke fun at - like on online forums. Regardless of fact, fiction or myths..."organized" religions, as a whole, seem to cause more harm than good and should be obsolete to society.

Personally, I think being an atheist is as simple as being religious - one usually lacks intellect while seeking a simple solution or has a selfish motive...and the other usually lacks imagination and the will to understand any further concepts besides what is found within humanity and/or science books.

Personally, I'll just stay with the creative, open-minded, confused, insane agnostic side of things, and try to come up with my own philosophies and theories.
Hell, all of this crap I just wrote could be omitted, and still the most important things to life is your health, happiness, family and/or the people you care about, humanity and this beautiful planet. I don't see that any belief system really matters, as long as you strive for what you think is right for yourself or justified for others.
reply report
1. 59
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
2. 61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  For all it's faults, organized religions have their acts together enough to do more real, day-to-day goood that most people who focus on religious conflict don't even notice. Establishing schools, relief agencies, food banks, hospitals, etc., takes something un-organized religion lacks. That's, well, organization.
  reply report
  59
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It still doesn't outweigh all of the turmoil, conflict, wars and death that occur - due to religious differences. Besides, non-religious "organizations" can do all of what you mentioned above.
  Another thing about organized religions, is that they are a threat to mankind's existence - if things keep going in the direction they currently are... Religious strife, is what needs to die.
  reply report
  61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Explain why in very many cases, they haven't to anywhere near the same extent the religious organizations have.
  
  Also consider history. Anytime group A branded group B entirely as "a threat to mankind's existence," group A would not only prove themselves wrong, they'd end up proving themselves a much more destructive force than they ever imagined group B to be.
  reply report
67
awareposted 15 years ago
misinformation .
reply report
59
Bloggeressaposted 15 years ago
Even though I am not an atheist, I have found that many atheists don't hate religion, they just haven't chosen one. Or, they feel that there is another reason we are here and why there's life on earth. I studied a little bit of religion and through my studies I found that religions all have so many similarities but there few differences are vital in the role they play within that particular religion. And if you're trying to find out who's right and who's wrong, it can get blurry and confusing, making it easier to become an atheist.
reply report
1. 79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thats more agnostic, atheist deny existance of God, Agnostics are more in the court of 'it could go either way'.
  reply report
59
Bloggeressaposted 15 years ago
all of my religion professors were atheists!
reply report
61
Danny R Handposted 15 years ago
I don't think they hate religion, I think they hate hipocrites, and those who try to shove thier beliefs down your throat.
reply report
60
brianzenposted 15 years ago
It is instinct to want to be correct we do not like seeing something contrary to our chosen belief. Because it is unsettling.
reply report
62
qwarkposted 15 years ago
I am not an atheist (they don't exist), agnostic, deist or a believer in imagined supernatural divinities.
I do hate religion.
Religions = SELF IMPOSED IGNORANCE.
IGNORANCE defined is; lacking knowledge.
I HATE the FACT that humans, adamantly, desire, worship, accept and maintain regressive IGNORANCE as a primitive way of life.
It is detrimental to and jeopardizes human survival!
reply report
1. 60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well put. Though it will make people mad to hear it, it's the truth. Religion is the embracing of ignorance.
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It is certainly nice to know that you think believers are ignorant. What does that make those who try and debate with us?
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It's nice to know believers think nonbelievers are willful rejectors of goodness who will spend eternity rotting in hell.
  
  You can't have it both ways, Mr. Dent. You can't embrace divisive religion and expect everyone else to honor you for it.
  
  I don't think believers are ignorant. I think they choose ignorance and pretend it is enlightenment.
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  I was told recently by a very intelligent atheist that ignorance cannot be chosen.
  
  Believers think nonbelievers are rejectors of God. And you are also avoiding the my question. You seemingly answered it but totally avoided it.
  
  If beleivers are ignorant, what does that make those who debate with them?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Willful ignorance with a purpose, Dent.
  
  A better word would be "denial."
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Your mirror never lies to you does it.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for making my point.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Speaking for myself only, my aim is to challenge these dangerous beliefs when I can for the main purpose of trying to keep the discussion of religion real, in the hopes that more religious and not so religious Americans will begin to realize that they ought not to try and force their misguided viewpoints on society as a whole.
  
  There are additional factors, but this is the one which motivates me the most. However, since religious extremists have forced me to look more closely at the question of religion and its effects on society, I now see that the problems go beyond what I mention above. While some of them -such as the scorning of science- is beyond my ability to really get into, there are other factors that I see as detrimental as well, such as the general dumbing down of society and the effects religion can have on honest seekers.
  
  Therefore even once we defeat this political movement which initially forced me into action, I expect I will still have much reason for wanting to keep the discussion real. Had the separation of church and state been respected, I never would have gotten involved.
  
  Should atheists and agnostics and other skeptics who reject these labels bow out and leave the discussion, then there would be little to stop believers and the many who barely believe from thinking far too highly of religion, religious motives and the effects of religion on society.
  reply report
  0
  SirDentposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Who is forcing views?
  
  What is dangerous about telling men that men are evil and do bad things?
  
  You seem to be confusing Christianity with Muslim Extremism. If you are talking about the Crusades, that was the Catholic Church. It was also for the Church to gain property. People sold their own farms and houses to finance the Crusades. They also slaughtered Jews and Christians along with Muslims.
  
  Even before the Crusades Muslims spread all throughout Europe. Of course many forget that fact. It was not spread in love and peace, but with the sword and wars.
  
  Before that Pagans hunted Christians down like animals and kiled them. They did all sorts of things to Christians. Some were turned in to the Romans and were tortured. Christianity has had a rough life, but yet it is stronger today than ever before. This is a fact that cannot be ignored.
  
  I think a level of respect should be given from both sides. We leave your threads alone and you leave ours alone. It isn't that hard to do really. I have left many threads alone simply because it isn't worth fighting over.
  reply report
  62
  qwarkposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you Pandora!
  reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
The problem with organized religion, just my opinion mind you, is the attempt to indoctrinate young people into believing things which go against science and logic. If they choose later on in their life to accept something which goes against education and reality it is a different thing.

I believe most believers are indoctrinated early on in their lives by their parents and church leaders. I may be wrong but i do not think so.
reply report
1. 55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I had an JW come to my door with a small boy who couldn't have been older than ten years. After a lengthy discussion in which the JW was trying to convince me that Christianity were all lies, I turned to the boy and asked him what he thought. He said, "I don't believe in emolushun"
  
  Do they even teach evolution to ten year olds?
  reply report
60
srwnsonposted 15 years ago
There are many websites that have contributed to "Where Atheists Come From." Many site issues in the Old Testiment which have been taken out of context.
reply report
1. 71
  Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Really, what has been taken out of context? The religion's of the world are out of context all on their own. No one needs to do anything to it, except read it.
  reply report
0
Will Apseposted 15 years ago
'So, you're comparing me to a god? You can't do that considering I don't provide morals, ethics and creation stories for you to believe, nor do I demand you worship and obey me.'

If you aren't providing all these services to other human beings you are the odd one out. We are all arbiters of ethics and create meanings for ourselves and others because we just can't help it. Its the way people are.

As for worshipping and obeying- you will need a lot of money or a couple of kids.
reply report
1. 55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think that would only serve to demonstrate that religions are man made.
  reply report
2. 71
  Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Actually Will Apse, you're not required to be obeyed or worship, yet you are your own 'god', per se, because YOU control everything about yourself. You do prove morals and ethics for others, by your actions. You don't need to pass along creation stories to be a 'god' in your own life.
  It's actually not the way people are. People are taught morals(correct ones) by those parents who really understand morality. The rest simply disregard the understanding they were taught with, because they see the actions of others and say "if they can do it then I can too", type of mentality, which is foolish, dishonest(to oneself) and ignorant to say the least.
  "Worship" those who have money? And, you will have a blind selfish fool running around at the beck and call of some ego-maniac. As for obeying? Yes, you would need children, because others(outside of the workplace, if you have authority) will most likely be too ignorant to listen to most of what you say.
  reply report
0
Will Apseposted 15 years ago
Everything credited to God arises out of ordinary people in ordinary interactions.

By the time kids are a few years old they understand notions of fairness and justice (he's got a bigger piece of cake than me!). They understand awe (its so big!). They believe in the supernatural (my mother can see through walls).

They are also taking responsibility for everything (daddy left home because I am bad. I'm so sorry.). So that cycle of guilt, sin begging for forgiveness and redemption that seems to make the Christian story so profound is in fact a reflection of the most common everyday feelings.
reply report
71
Cagsilposted 15 years ago
The purpose wouldn't be to only make them aware, but to get them to focus more on their life and stop wasting the energy on a delusion, for which, damages others around them, because those who do follow a religious mystic view are selfish.
Truth is truth. Even you said there are 3 sides to every story, not that I agree, but it was something you said in another forum thread.

If there are 3 sides to every story, that means there are two different perspectives/perceptions of truth(lies) and then real truth, which is backed up by factual evidence, achieved through investigative efforts and deductive reasoning.

I do not agree there are three sides to every story. There are in fact only two sides to every story- Lie and Truth. Because, with your thinking, if there were more than 2 people involved, then you would have more sides to the story? Such, as if there were 3 people who jointly committed a murder, but investigation would lead one to find out the truth of the matter. But, you would then have 4 sides- the 3 who did it(lie) and truth.

I don't mean to offend. Just my thought.
reply report
1. 76
  Shadesbreathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No offense taken at all.
  
  I don't recall saying there are 3 (and only 3) sides to a story. I'm certain my intent was to say that there aren't only two. Truth is relative to perspective, as you have pointed out. What happens to "truth" is that to have an absolute truth, you need to narrow down the parameters of it so tightly that there can no longer be any debate. In your case of "murder" the "truth" would be something related to who actually plunged the knife into the victim's chest. So, if Man 1 was the person who did it, it would be a lie if he or any of the others said anything other than "Man 1 stabbed him."
  
  Where the truth becomes less clear cut is whether or not it was "murder."
  reply report
59
h.a.borcichposted 15 years ago
Valerie F wrote:
Or they assume they're God, make their own rules, and if theyp[re powerful enough, they can make society in their image. Lenin and Stalin tried that.

This is where the conversation was hijacked. I do believe she is inferring that Stalin attempted to change society to an athiestic one and/or that he thought he was God.
(As I am not intimately familiar with Stalin, I kicked back to learn, absorb some information.)
Remember there are no little boys or priests at this point in the thread. I am pretty sure she already disclosed she is a practising catholic, but not that she condones child abuse.
Do you want to debate her reference to Stalin? Or did you not have a view to share civilly? Holly
For an important educated hubber you sure are playing it btw.

Edit...I am reviewing the thread and noticing you have editted a few entries making it look different yet again. So much for civil debate.
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Aww Holly - so you are looking for a fight. Good for you. This is why I despise your religion. Like it says in the title of the thread.
  
  Yes - Valerie was suggesting that religion is better - because Stalin killed some people and he was an atheist who thought he was god - therefore religion is better because of the altruistic nature and moral high ground taken by believers. I merely pointed out that the church was (and is) just as bad and this was an invalid argument that suggested she was prepared to ignore the child abuse.
  
  Although - I have used my own words here - so I guess that is "editing" what was said.
  reply report
  59
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Good job, Mark. This just proves, once again, that religious strife needs to die!
  Some of the most defensive, attacking, maliciously pervasive individuals on this planet...are the "holier than thou" religious freaks!
  I don't know, maybe Holly and some of the other "enlightened ones" may have some advice for me, as well. Ha-ha!
  reply report
  61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know. This whole thread proves that atheists who think they're any better than religious people really aren't.
  reply report
59
h.a.borcichposted 15 years ago
It appears Stalin was an athiest rejected from seminary, who let the chip on his shoulder obscur the value of much human life.
"Killed some people" seems to be an understatement.
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Like "had sex with a few children" is an understatement?
  
  reply report
  59
  h.a.borcichposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes Mark - the catholic priest problem is a bad one and something needs to be done. I know some catholic people and I am sure they have never committed these abuses so I won't blame everyone who has a belief is catholisism. ....
  Are you here to chide or are you trying to debate the topic?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The topic?
  
  "What do you think has driven atheists to hate religion?"
  
  Sure - I can see how priests having sex with children has nothing to do with the topic.
  reply report
  61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The atrocities Stalin had committed were only barely matched in scope by his onetime ally Hitler.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And the Pope.
  
  Still not understanding the "Stalin killed people therefore it is OK that the Vicar of Christ did, and we should ignore the ongoing child abuse by Catholic priests," argument.
  
  Perhaps you could explain that to me again?
  reply report
  61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Why should I explain something I don't believe and never said?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  So - what about the disgusting behavior of the church and self professed Catholics over the years? Still going on to this day.
  
  Reason to despise religion wouldn't you agree? And pretty much proves that believers are killers.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  can you actually name five 100% practicing Catholics? Seriously.
  like one in a million. The institution is corrupt, but hey so is every other on the planet from Goldman Sacks to Richard Dawkins' online store. Everyone is selling snake oil from Steve Jobs to Little Miss Moppet.
  
  lol
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well - I have said many time that I have never met a genuine Christian.
  
  I will become one when the time is right, (another few years yet - things to do) - but it will not be what these guys think it will.
  reply report
2. 55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Stalin didn't kill people simply due to religion, he killed them because he believed they were a threat to his control of power.
  reply report
  61
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And among the imagined threats to the Soviet state were all religious people.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  small correction: soviet state's (plural).
  
  almost 1/2 the world was under a soviet idealistic control.
  religion was outlawed.
  
  Christianity is the noisiest, but almost the second to least.
  The smallest group being atheist, from what I have read.
  The two biggest are Muslim and Hindi/Buddhism, followed by Judaism and Roman Catholic.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not true, the threat of Communism affected everyone, religion was just one small part of it. Of course, no believers here have actually taken the time to understand that and focus entirely on the religious aspect.
  reply report
59
h.a.borcichposted 15 years ago
If Every religion including atheism is guilty of having at least one bloody war or blood thirsty leader, they should be forever despised, generally speaking?
Stalin justifies hating athiests?
Catholics justify hate because of crusades? etc?

Because of Stalin I should mistrust and ridicule every atheist I encounter no matter what they personally believe? Every christian to ever believe may as well have slayed with a sword?
There is no possible end to any of it? Really?

Is there a religion in existence that has no blemish? Holly
reply report
1. 59
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You could always be more concise and just say that the Homo sapiens are a disease/virus to the planet, period! LOL!
  reply report
  59
  h.a.borcichposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Are you saying all men might just be evil and/or blood thirsty with or without a religion?
  reply report
  59
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The term 'Homo sapiens' does not point out a specific gender, but even if you meant mankind: no, that's not what I said. Did you even graduate Junior High School? Just curious...
  
  Religion = control & power that wields the weapon of fear upon the weak!
  
  As for your asinine query: I never said what you stated above; I was just trying to shorten your scrambled hogwash! Ha-ha!
  reply report
  59
  h.a.borcichposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Nice Wasn't singling out just men duh.
  So much for exploring other points of view.
  reply report
  59
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I can't help that you have a communicable impediment!
  Duh! If you would have said 'mankind' instead of men (since gender is usually applied when one uses the terms 'men' or 'women'), you wouldn't have sounded so biased. So, you have poor grammatical expressions... It's okay; it seems to be the norm around here. ...Just forget about it; go light you a few candles and worship someone elses self-created God.
  LOL! Ha-ha! So foolish...
  reply report
63
RKHenryposted 15 years ago
I don't hate religion. I just hate stupid people.
reply report
1. 56
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, a nihilistic self-loathing does lie at the core of the desperate, reactionary desire of atheists to deify themselves in response to an existential fear of their ultimate powerlessness.
  
  It's like watching someone sit there with a bloody knife and fork pointing at appalled passerby and spitting out little chunks of flesh while he cuts and chews and eats himself at the same time that he loudly declares everyone else's foolishness for not doing the same. "I'll show you!" he screams as he carves off another piece, "I'm in control! Me! Me!"
  
  Only one way for that meal to end...
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  TK sensei - that is the most I have ever heard you say (as it were).
  
  Does it really upset you that much that there are educated people who refuse to believe in the invisible super being?
  
  Perhaps if you took my advice and enrolled in a further education program? Might make you feel less "appalled" that there are other people who do not share your irrational beliefs?
  
  Worth a try I think.
  reply report
59
h.a.borcichposted 15 years ago
That's what you call debate? haha Done.
reply report
0
SirDentposted 15 years ago
Atheists actually love religion. They spend more time in the religion forums than believers do.
reply report
0
Brenda Durhamposted 15 years ago
They are drawn to it like horses to water but balk at drinking.
reply report
1. 60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  When horses balk at drinking water it's usually because they know it's poisoned.
  reply report
59
megs78posted 15 years ago
I think its funny that most people believe in some form of the supernatural ie, angels, mediums, ghosts, etc, but completely lose their minds if someone claims that God exists.
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Really? Most people believe in ghosts - and this must mean there is a god, and you think it is funny when "most" people believe in ghosts, but than they don't believe in god?
  
  Odd. I thought "most" people believed in the invisible super being.
  
  No?
  
  Personally - I find it hilarious when people think they know what most people believe in based solely on..... well... nothing actually.
  
  But if it makes you feel better to invent statistics..........
  reply report
  59
  megs78posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Whats not funny about it Mark? Here, wait, I will change my very scientific statistic of the word 'most people' to 'many people'. Is that more acceptable to you? You are quite the hornet aren't you?
  reply report
81
mega1posted 15 years ago
if it's true that atheists hate religion (which I doubt) then why is it that certain people think the same redudant and empty-minded religion questions that generalize and say nothing and make me want to vomit - are so interesting and post them over and over and over and over and over and over
reply report
1. 59
  tantrumposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  There's not much to say in favor of Religion
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  ... and yet so much is said! From one of the tomes of course as there is nothing about it anywhere else where it is seen as nonsense by those who live in the absence of the ever lovin non existent fairy.
  reply report
76
Shadesbreathposted 15 years ago
I think you totally nailed it when you say, "...for these people logic has little to do with it." I agree completely. For some people, logic is not possible (which is so frustrating) and for others, the evidence of man's failed science so many times in the past is only evidence that it's going to be just as wrong in our age as it was in the others. They were certain the world was flat and leeches worked at one point, and could even make logical arguments based on evidence proving it. For many, I doubt they even work that hard on skipping logic. Some just like the way it feels. It just "feels" right... sort of in the way of a Wordsworth poem or stuff by Muir.

I would argue that you assume this, as do I, but you don't KNOW it. To know, as in possess finite and absolute knowledge of some future fact, is impossible. And if some miracle happened beyond refutation for you, some unexpected evidence that defied all laws of probability and reason, something so profound and obviously true, you would believe. I grant it's unlikely, but it's certainly not unheard of. There are many, highly intelligent, extremely well-read, deeply contemplative people in major religions.

Yes. This is precisely how it works in reverse with those trying to convert you. Proselytizing is a feature of religion. (And don't think I didn't grin at your using the "see the light" thing. But, we already had this argument, so I shall refrain from taking your tongue-and-cheek comment out of context even though you have to admit that the fact it fits so well in that spot might be seen by someone like me as more than an accident. )

I didn't address it because, the way I see it, that is a different animal. Her bliss is not spiritual and the discovery of her lack of information is going to be devastating, and may be inevitable and increasingly damaging the longer the deceit goes on. If she never finds out, and lives her whole life out never knowing and she is happy, then I suppose even that extreme twisting of "bliss" from what it started as being in the coversation--joy and happiness DUE to the emotional gains wrought by the willing acceptance of supernatural belief system that answers unanswerable questions--then it could be argued as having had no harm (albeit an argument requiring pure logic and no empathy). If she dies happy and there is no afterlife, then, sure, in a hypothetical scenario, why not? The old cliché "ignorance is bliss" falls neatly into place here.

The problem with that analogy, however, is that it is not a new "truth" that she is given to answer questions, a religion she found to explain some great universal mystery; it is the maintenance of an old truth about her marriage that has become falsehood. Your analogy requires that what was once true now no longer be true, and then action is taken to maintain the old truth with a series of lies. The God thing, and even the drug bliss thing, do not require an accepted and true fact to be maintained afterward in newfound falsehood with lies; it was not once true and now false. So, that analogy, while seemingly good, falls apart if examined closely, and lands in the land of red herrings, as fun as it was to contemplate.
reply report
1. 60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I want to say a few things, but the first thing I want to say is that I'm sorry what I said was thoughtless in that it sounded to you like I meant it in a way I didn't mean it at all. Blah blah blah that sentence was so unconcise and pointless.
  
  What I mean is when I said "see the light" or "come to the light" -however I put it- it wasn't meant in any way as a dig at you. Honestly. I realize now it must have sounded like that, but it's not how I meant it at the time.
  
  Truth is I kinda forgot you're agnostic. Well no, I guess I didn't. I don't think I thought of it at all at the time. I have a bad habit of completely overlooking the obvious.
  
  Then I put "if you can forgive the terminology" afterwards, which makes it seem even more like I meant it the way you took it, but I really don't think I did.
  
  Not real sure why I seemed to be asking you to forgive the terminology.. Using christian language to describe atheism maybe. I find myself wanting to do that alot, and i always try and refrain from doing so because I figure it gives christian listeners the feeling that "see the bible is true, you just quoted it", so I think when I said that using the christian terminology and then saying "if you can forgive the terminology" I was meaning like because I was talking with you specifically I figured it was safe to use such terminology without being seen as borrowing from christianity or justifying its wisdom.
  
  Sounds like a crazy long winded trying to get out of it kind of excuse I know, but I really didn't mean it the way I realize it sounded.
  
  Or shoot, maybe I did, I dunno.
  
  I agree with you almost completely here except for a couple of very small things. I think science and more specifically the pursuit of science or its methodology has come a long way since the days of leeching and flat earth.
  
  Are there still flat-earthers out there? Saying flat earth brought to mind the flat-earthers which I recall from my last dip into 'religion wars' which ended almost a decade ago. They still around? Off-topic, sorry. Brain drift.
  
  Anyway, science isn't my forte that's for sure, and I TOTALLY understand that it's a real pain in the butt for average people to even approach it. It's one of those things most people don't understand, and what people don't understand they fear.
  
  I have noticed that when people try to use that approach they almost never successfully explain anything. Maybe it's just one of those subjects that are impossible to dumb-down enough for the average person to grasp.
  
  All that said and agreeing with you in essence, I still think science has changed a whole lot since then. Doesn't mean we should put our blind faith in it, but despite what people like Mikel say, I don't think we need to, and I certainly don't.
  
  Still, some things are provable enough, and science definitely has its place in disproving religious texts and certain ideas or tenets, though of course it cannot exactly disprove the possibility of the existance of a god.
  
  Okay, now when I said that I know nothing will ever change the fact that there is no reason to believe in a god, I probably should have better clarified that right now there is no reason to believe in a god, and in the history of at least my existance there never has been a reason to do such. Like way back when, when people were alot less educated and had to depend on the priests for all of their knowledge, I cannot try to judge their reasons. I'm pretty sure that they had to believe, or at the very least had to keep their derned mouths shut about it otherwise.
  
  What I didn't mean was that should we suddenly find some proof of something, I still wouldn't believe, though as you said I find that possibility to be so very unlikely that I almost never think about it. Honestly I can't even imagine what such proof might entail.
  
  But what I meant is that I know that I am justified in my unbelief. I realize that technically that's not what I said.
  
  Whatever evidence may present itself in the future, isn't going to change the fact that right now I have no reason to believe, and I'm very extremely comfortable with that. Should I ever find myself before a god who demanded to know why I didn't believe, I feel myself so very justified in my unbelief that I would not feel any shame or regret. There would be no second guessing or self-doubt in it, I know and would know then as well that whatever god this may be had never given us enough evidence for his existance.
  
  If I ended up in some hell over it, I'd still feel justified. Though again, I honestly can't fathom the existance of any such god or any such hell. I guess what I mean is that I am so confident in my unbelief that I am ready to stake not only my life on it, but my childrens' lives as well.
  
  Are you a mother? You know I first sought out religion because of my children, and I struggled with it for a long time for their sake more than for my own, and I slowly backed away pausing for a long time at each stage along the road going "what if I'm wrong?" and thinking of them.
  
  So this whole thing has never been something I ever took lightly, and i am very comfortable with where I am now because I know exactly why and how I came to be here. And though I share with them what I know when I can, and hope to better do so in the future by the means of writing it all down in a coherent form, I want them to also make that journey for themselves, because I want for them to know why and how they are believing whatever they end up with. Otherwise I don't think a person can have true peace about it.
  
  So the only other thing was the cheated wife analogy. No, I disagree. It's a small thing and i feel sorta petty for arguing with you about it (but shoot, that never stopped me before.)
  
  It is a new truth! Just like religion and atheism, it will take her a while to get there, and the process won't always be painless, but it would be worth it! The bliss she has in a marriage with a philanderer who cannot cherish and honor her is nothing compared to the bliss she could have in her liberation, be it with someone who was more capable of truly loving her or in learning to be blissful on her own and in her own right. I insist either would be better than a marriage based on lies and empty beliefs.
  
  One might say that not all women are capable, (or men to be fair) blah blah blah, I deny it. We change, we grow, and we often don't know what we can do until we are forced to find out. Sure I'm denying the reality that many women have wilted and faded on being dumped, but I deny all realities that are based on false premises. This was only because of what she believed!
  
  Okay I rambled enough. I will say that your point while I may not fully agree with about bliss and all has helped me to understand believers better. The ones so deeply hooked, they think their happiness depends on it, when it doesn't.
  
  They have defined everything by their faith, just like a person in an unhealthy marriage, they don't understand that life can go on and be better without it.
  
  It's not just the shame of walking away, and it's not just everything you have to leave behind. It's not just a fear that God could be watching, it's a lack of motivation because happiness cannot be imagined without it.
  
  As always, shades, great "talking" with you.
  reply report
  59
  h.a.borcichposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ok this is messed up and no clue how to edit it the right way. I am sure someone will tell me I am stupid for it, but I am not computer literate. Sorry
  I am NOT trying to change what anyone said !!
  
  Hi PB & Shades,
  I have been following your conversation with interest and have a question, if I may.
  
  Quoting from PB : It is a new truth! Just like religion and atheism, it will take her a while to get there, and the process won't always be painless, but it would be worth it! The bliss she has in a marriage with a philanderer who cannot cherish and honor her is nothing compared to the bliss she could have in her liberation, be it with someone who was more capable of truly loving her or in learning to be blissful on her own and in her own right. I insist either would be better than a marriage based on lies and empty beliefs.
  
  One might say that not all women are capable, (or men to be fair) blah blah blah, I deny it. We change, we grow, and we often don't know what we can do until we are forced to find out. Sure I'm denying the reality that many women have wilted and faded on being dumped, but I deny all realities that are based on false premises. This was only because of what she believed!
  
  Okay I rambled enough. I will say that your point while I may not fully agree with about bliss and all has helped me to understand believers better. The ones so deeply hooked, they think their happiness depends on it, when it doesn't.
  
  They have defined everything by their faith, just like a person in an unhealthy marriage, they don't understand that life can go on and be better without it.
  
  It's not just the shame of walking away, and it's not just everything you have to leave behind. It's not just a fear that God could be watching, it's a lack of motivation because happiness cannot be imagined without it.
  
  I can relate as I have had to be stong enough to leave an abusive and cheating husband, leaving everything but what I had on me behind. I was not happy with the lies or pretending, walking out was very liberating. But I did not give up the idea of being married. Eventually I found a great partner and have been happily married a few years now. I have no regrets.
  In relation to my faith, I am not adhering to my beliefs out of fear that I will burn in hell. I am not a believer because I am too lazy to wise up. I choose to follow what I believe because I am happy with myself. On my own, I see a world of pain, isolation, and abuses. With my perception of God, I see a world with hope of heaven. I do my best to stay focused on helping others rather than just being it for what I can glean for myself. Although I recognise I have no "proof" for what I believe and know there is a possibility I am wrong - in this I will choose to believe anyway. I cannot see that walking away would liberate me to something beyond a selfish or hopeless nature. Again, I am convinced who I am believing in God is better than the dismal world I see without it.
  
  What I am asking is this: If I am at peace with myself, if faith causes me to be more concerned with helping others rather than selfishness, and I am not a burden on society - why should I be attacked to change? How is my choice someone else's problem?
  
  I didn't post to argue - I think you both have supplied interesting thoughts. I just am asking some questions.
  
  Holly
  reply report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Holly, that is exactly the point I am making, or trying to. You shouldn't be attacked. You have the "bliss" that we have been discussing. And I don't see why you need be "attacked."
  
  I think it's fair for atheists and what not to engage in conversation with you if you bring up your faith to them, or vice versa. But beyond that, I see no reason that anyone should attack you over it. As I said to Q above, I wish I could believe. You are lucky to have that faith.
  
  In regards to the quotes thing getting scrambled, try this next time. When you "reply" to a post, before you start typing, click the highlighted "import and edit the quote" statement that is in the little paragraph above the window you type in. Then, you can manage the quotes as you like. If you click the "formatting tips" thing at the bottom right corner, you will see a nice little menu of how to make the quotes work. It's very easy once you do it a time or two, and you can preview your attempt before you hit submit until you get it right with the Preview button below.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Holly,
  
  I don't know the details of your faith, and am not asking you to share them, but if I say something in this post that doesn't refer to your personal beliefs and priorities in those beliefs, I would ask you to understand that I am speaking in generalities regarding religion, christianity in particular which is the prominent religion in our part of the world. Then again, I'm not sure either what part of the world you are from, so let me say my part of the world.
  
  From my perspective, and I believe I could say from the secularist perspective, there IS a religious war in the U.S., but we certainly didn't start it. Since long before its official inception, our country has been home to atheists and agnostics who have quietly deferred to the majority, and fully respected your right to believe as you wished.
  
  At the same time, the world has advanced, prejudices and negative traditional values have been put aside, and scientific advances have been made, always with christian believers playing a big role in those advances. Certain christian elements have reacted against these advances, feeling the truth which is that in effect they threaten the existance of these christian elements.
  
  While it is true that progress in science and moral thinking threatens their existance, that was never the goal of atheists or the christian activists, it is just a natural biproduct of progress.
  
  I know you know these things, I'm just reiterating them to establish my point and annoy those people who would object to long posts.
  
  In reaction to progress, certain elements of the christian members of our country have raised up AGAINST secularism, not against atheism, but against secularism and progress. Sadly, they have managed to infect many members of less extreme christianity as well by their fear mongering, and have gained an unfortunate amount of political and societal power.
  
  From my point of view, the power does still lie with the people, to at least some extent. Sure they'll screw us all as much as they can get away with, but to what extent they'll screw our moral liberties rests in the power of the people who elect them.
  
  As the reasonable minority -which I am well aware contains a moderate number of 'reasonable' christians- it does us little good to petition our political leaders. We have to change the hearts and minds of the people.
  
  Whatever your personal religious beliefs may be, I'm sure you're aware that many of your fellow christians -assuming you are christian- would have our secular rights trampled on, and in fact do have our secular rights trampled on every chance they get. We are already marginalized as it is, and always has been. Imagine how much worse it would be for us if these christian extremists succeeded in having our nation declared a christian nation, which is very much their goal and heart's desire.
  
  That's something we cannot let happen. Again, we didn't start the war, but we'd be foolish not to fight back against this movement. It is only the secular nature of our society which was advanced partly by moderate christians themselves in reasonable cooperation with nonchristians which keeps this war in the U.S. from being truly deadly. From the inside you feel persecution, it is something that christians have not felt for a very long time in our hemisphere, unless perhaps you refer to the interfaith persecution, which nonbelievers have nothing at all to do with.
  
  From the outside, I can only be glad that the persecution -which nonbelievers have been suffering for eons- has not reverted back to the days of violence, at least not in my hemisphere, and at least not yet.
  
  In other words, I guess, I don't really see the trading of insults in these discussion as much of a big deal. It's just a biproduct of the discussions themselves, which are necessary, and a great trade-off considering the lack of actual blood-shed.
  
  Have I rambled on long enough to be annoying yet? Or to qualify as a rant, do you suppose?
  
  Well, let me address something else you said then, just to be sure.
  
  It's not just the very real and serious political concerns. You said something about the despair in the world without a belief in god. Not your exact words I'm sure, but something to that effect.
  
  I don't want to get too far into that, because we're having such a nice discussion and I don't want to ruin it right now by saying things you might feel are offensive. Surely, though, I will in other threads, on other days.
  
  For now to you I just want to say that I feel that viewpoint is detrimental to society on a whole other level. When that is the prevalent viewpoint of society, it can be very harmful to individuals, which in turn makes it very harmful to society as a whole.
  
  I respect a person's rights -natural rights- to believe in what they choose. But there needs to be other options. It is among my wishes that secular society would be able to step up and better provide society with those other options, and I recognize that we haven't succeeded yet at that, and that shortcoming is wholly our's, and not to be laid at the feet of religion. It's partly a matter of viability, the numbers are needed to create the will, and partly a matter of recognition of the problem. I am not sure most secularists have recognized this problem, and that is another reason why the discussions must continue. We rarely even touch on this aspect of the reality of our religiously dominated society, but we will, eventually, and when we do we will realize I believe that a secular replacement system would be helpful, especially considering the high populations of our communities.
  
  I'm not certain the above paragraph made alot of sense, but I'm gonna let it be for now. Because it's something I haven't before articulated thoroughly, and also because I really am not trying to annoy anyone. I don't feel the trading of one-liners constitutes a discussion, however.
  
  So I hope that I have answered your question well enough for now from my perspective of how religious beliefs harm society. At the same time, I want to make clear that I don't want you to drop your religious belief just to make someone else happy or to conform to society. As the discussion with shades helped me to more fully and consciously realize, we all have to be at peace with our decisions. I think that is something both sides need to be more fully and actively aware of.
  
  I have always believed and put forth that if I felt your rights to believe as you choose were threatened, I would fight just as hard to protect your rights, as I try to fight for the rights of secularists. I hope that you can believe me.
  
  In the meantime, these discussions and the nature of these discussions only serves to show that there is a problem in society in relations between believers and nonbelievers. We are lucky that we live in these days, that we are able to begin to recognize the problems and work towards resolving them.
  
  I only ask you personally since we have had this heart to heart to acknowledge to yourself that secularists and atheists have just as much right to their beliefs as believers have to their's, and to the practice of their beliefs, and also that secularism and atheism are as 'persecuted' as the religious are. Moreso these days, perhaps, at least in some regions of the world, but I won't haggle over degrees or over definitions of persecution in this thread.
  
  Thanks for speaking up. Understanding of each other cannot come about otherwise.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Pretty well stated. I am impressed.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you! Good, now maybe you'll listen to me more the next time I have to tell you how far off-base you are.
  
  Totally joking, just kidding around.
  reply report
  59
  Jeramiposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It was a well thought and an attitude that people on both sides of any issue should have. We learn nothing when we stop listening. And the other person usualy stops saying anything worth learning after they feel that they have been insulted.
  You know how to comunicate respectfully. Thanks for being you.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Jerami, hope all is good with you today.
  
  Since you responded to this post where I said "Good, now maybe you'll listen to me more the next time I have to tell you how far off-base you are" I just wanted to make sure you knew that the comment there -jokingly intended though it was- was not in any way directed at you.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  probably not.
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well - I have only been up less than 2 hours so I went and got another coffee and settled in for your good read.
  
  Well said, and so restrained, calm and gentle. An example that others might learn from.
  
  Good morning everyone
  reply report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You are beyond forgiven for the terminology, and should know I don't think I took it as you think. I saw it as just a light-hearted way of expressing the idea of "I came to a realization." I read it as you expressing that idea about non-belief, that you "saw the light" when it comes to realizing the god-stories don't work. I thought it was humorous, as in, you were having a bit of fun, a sprinkle of ironic metaphor was all. I was just picking on you a little, meant in fun too. Sometimes inserting a smilie is just not good enough, <sigh>, but I did not mean to give the impression I was offended or in anyway took it personally. I thought it was great and in keeping with the friendly nature of the exchange. So, we're all good on that front.
  
  I do not disagree with you on this at all. My point was to say that this analogy is not analagous to the bliss of religion due to the fact that at one point there was a faithful marriage, and then, after an action on the husbands part, there was no longer a faithful marriage. In the god-religion scenario, there is not the absolute truth that god does not exist as a known and provable fact and then that person is sold religion by someone who knows there is no god but that is creating a ruse to cover up the fact that they are doing something wrong. I don't believe that is really what happens in religion most of the time, which is not to say it never happens, but I don't think that analogy works. The nature of a real human being in a real marriage, I totally agree with you. In my head I'm keeping the separation between specific and hypothetical. In a hypothetical case, thought and theory only, I maintain that "bliss" if it is true bliss, is all the same in a hypothetical universe where there is no afterlife - especially since, as I was discussing with (Q), you can't quantify it to say one thing provides more bliss than another. But principles that apply generally rarely apply specifically, and to your point about an individual, real woman, I absolutely agree.
  
  And I also agree this has been a lively and interesting conversation. Thank you for it. It's fun to watch people writhe in agony when others exchange thoughts that require more than a cartoon chat bubbble's worth of time and energy.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, good! I do find a good deal of wisdom in the bible, in fact. Having spent so much time in it in the past, I find it hard not to occasionally borrow phrases from it, but I try not to for the reasons stated before.
  
  Someone in this forum said it not long ago to someone else (I don't remember who and who, and it doesn't matter anyway) something along the lines of "using an argument from the bible to prove belief in it wrong makes no sense".
  
  Personally I disagree, in many instances it makes perfect sense, but when the debates rage sometimes it's impossible to reason with people. Which is ironic.
  
  I understand your point about the analogy of the unhealthy marriage. I could probably argue it, but won't bother, I think we both understand each other anyway so the analogy is moot.
  
  Plus I'd ramble too much about the nature of love, go all off-topic and annoy people, which never bothers me much anyhow, but why argue for argument's sake, so I won't.
  
  The truth is, I don't always advocate the divorce in these scenarios, though I do feel the transgression to be extremely grievous. Sometimes the marriage is worth salvaging anyway, and I think better for having been nearly lost, but it shouldn't take the betrayal to get people to that point.
  
  That's another topic and another forum really, so I'll drop it, I just didn't want anyone to think that I am so rigid as to think the transgression wholly unforgivable and the marriage inconsiderably unsalvagable.
  
  I am sorry for rambling in my last reply to you, but I appreciate your point of view. You don't seem to be here on either side of the 'war' exactly, and I respect your neutrality and insights. I don't think you're neutral on specific issues, but you seem to approach them from a well-balanced viewpoint, and that is what I like about you.
  
  I don't always fully agree with you, and am not getting in the middle of you and Q because I think you're both right, lol, but I almost always learn something or better recognize or understand something from our exchanges.
  
  Well I'm off of here for the night, cause I'm still tired and planning an early bedtime. It was a long day, but a good day. I shouldn't have stayed up so late last night.
  
  My daughter -if you'll allow me a moment to gloat a bit more- is the officially smartest of my children. I say officially because though my son has always been in advanced classes and is far more reasonable and my other daughter is very creative in ways the other two lack and very responsible, my youngest child and daughter in the competition today is the only one who was ever in gifted classes.
  
  But I don't put alot of faith in that, because she really doesn't give a fat rat's bum about any of it. She hates studying, loves clothes and shopping, her room is almost always a federally declared disaster area and she frequently tells me "whatever". I swear this child used to roll her eyes at people when she was still a small baby. I know nobody would believe that, but she did. She'd look at people cooing at her, and she'd stare back at them with the most profound look on her face and then she'd just roll her eyes and look away, totally dismissing them from her world.
  
  Anyway, I was really concerned about how she would do today, because she has been difficult to pin down to reviewing her assigned topic materials. It's really unfair that she's the gifted one.
  
  So I was so glad she did well. I was more happy about it than she was. Long day, but rewarding one as well.
  
  So goodnight and I'm sure I'll 'argue' with you another time.
  reply report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. The Bible is a piece of literature as much as it is a holy book. Quoting from literature is and always has been an excellent way to make points. Irony is just fun.
  
  Yeah, I try not to pick sides. I tend to play Devil's Advocate when one side of anything get's unfairly beat on. I think that "war" happens when people stop being reasonable, so I try to mediate with reason. When I can. Other times, after a few cold ones, well, a nice argument laden with sarcasm is fun too.
  
  And, on your tangent, I love the crap out of my daughter too.
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 15 years ago
@Shadesbreath, Wow.
reply report
71
earnestshubposted 15 years ago
PB two hubs right there! Geeze what happened, ya wore out the keyboard on this one!
Good post an all... Just a bit shorter than genesis!
reply report
62
karobiposted 15 years ago
is their lack of understanding GOd, remember the letters kills but the spirit behind the letters gives life abundantly. thanks
reply report
69
Antecessorposted 15 years ago
I dont bother to read long and disorganised posts like above. Those types of posts are called rants for a reason.
reply report
1. 60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not sure which post you're referring to. I suspect it was mine, but I don't see anyone ranting. Perhaps you have a different definition of the word rant in Australia.
  
  But yes, I agree that you should skip any posts that appear too long, pointless and/or uninteresting to you. That's what I always do.
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It wasn't your post he was referring to PB.
  
  Hope you're doin well!
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, tired, but well, Earnest, thank you. Nothing makes a parent happier than seeing their children do well, as I'm sure you know.
  
  reply report
  71
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I just wanted to comment on the bit about your daughter rolling her eyes at adults. One of my twin granddaughters is the same. She has been able to exit a room as well as Bette Davis since she was two, she challenges everything she hears and when she rolls her eyes, even the dog is insulted, so I get what you are saying, and must admit I find it adorable!
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah me too. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure she knows it!
  
  Thanks China Man, and to your good morning, good night!
  reply report
59
Jeramiposted 15 years ago
This may sound out of place in this train of thought,but I don't think so. To answer the question about God forgiving or not, the un belief of Atheists???? The first commandment is to NOT put other Gods before him.
I believe that it is better to go nowhere than to go in the wrong direction.????? There are too many definitions of who this God is. To make no choice as to which definition to choose is better than to choose the wrong one ???
It is written that he chooses whom he will so......

It is early in the AM and I am sure that I didn't explain this exactly the way that I am thinking it. Sorry.
reply report
1. 60
  Pandoras Boxposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  In my journey from believer to nonbeliever I worried about what the hypothetical god would think of my apostasy. Eventually I decided honesty was the best policy. If a hypothetical god cannot appreciate and understand that, then I wouldn't want anything to do with him/her/it anyways, you know?
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

12 3 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

What do you think has driven atheists to hate religion?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

What do you think has driven atheists to hate religion?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies