Why do people hate religion? (2 Viewers)

[KFunk]

What if the creator was neither god nor non-god, how can you even begin to profess and declare something that is so completely out of the range of the human mind?

If you want to set up your creator as a logical contradiction then there's no point in having a debate. To declare the creator and its properties to be beyond the range of the human mind amounts to removing any grounds for argument. It's fine if you choose a leap of faith, but don't try to argue about something which is beyond logic and comprehension.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

The question whay do people hate religion?

The answer people hate what they dont understand or what they choose not to belive in its human nature to question life in general and the sad thing is that if someone dosent agree with your point of view on this subject they will normaly hate it.

Or pity it, which is worse. I prefer to be hated for my beliefs than patronised, pitied and condescended to. Some, and I stress some religious people have an unfortunate tendency to speak to a person who doesn't believe in any gods as if they are a five year old child, or as if they can already see the hellfire they will be burning in.

Anyway, I don't hate religion. I feel it is a waste of time. It causes angst by the bucketload, not to mention religious wars. It teaches men and women to live without having sex- it denies a natural human urge.

I have a rather good opinion of Jesu ben Nazerath the man- he comes across as a very nice man, concerned for his people and with beautiful beliefs, however if he was god I don't believe he would have come to earth. I believe that a truly loving god would have seen the end result of his actions, and not revealed himself to us, because although his message of love was good, he should have been able to see the things that would follow from it. Witch burnings, the Inquisition, the Crusades...even the current fighting over Jerusalem, a piece of desert where Jesus ate, slept and crapped.

 

[VollDoggy]

Heres what one of my mates has to say when asked why do people hate religion

"Hey Pete.
I rekon its because religion is for people who enjoy the comfort of rules and structure. Religion is for those people who need to practice something. And for the most part although it appears difficult is actually a comfortable shield to hide behind to avoid things like conflict, real relationships, and experiencing real life. The fact is that this life is fucked and if you experience anything else your either fucked on acid, or dillusional. Trying to be religious or being religious is useless. The bible says, "our best attempts are like filthy rags". So we ask the question why try? why be a good person? Trying doesnt get us gods approval, trying doesnt get Gods love. There is no point in trying "our best attempts are filthy rags". But the reason we do try to be good people, the reason we do try to be lovers of men is because we have Jesus Christ living in us. Because all though we have a rooted heart, a minute portion is Christ living with in us. Thats why Paul says less of me God and more of You.
So Pete "real" people dont want to be Religious. "Real" people dont want a name to hide behind or a group to follow. Real people want real answers to there all to real problems, a group of nice people cant do that. Religion my friend is a waste of my time.

Well that was a long ramble.
I hope you catch my drift pete, dont meen to offend or anything just my point of view.
Cheers

jb "

 

[bshoc]

If you want to set up your creator as a logical contradiction then there's no point in having a debate. To declare the creator and its properties to be beyond the range of the human mind amounts to removing any grounds for argument. It's fine if you choose a leap of faith, but don't try to argue about something which is beyond logic and comprehension.

Congratulations you're one of the few people who understand what I'm trying to say.

Nobody has any realistic grounds for debate, I'm just one of the few people who admit it.

 

[gerhard]

does anyone remember that website that asked you philosophical questions on god and you had to try not to contradict yourself? anyone remember the link?


edit: found it and theres a new one/ oooh
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Nobody has any realistic grounds for debate, I'm just one of the few people who admit it.

Nobody has any realistic grounds for debate because you're willing to include supernatural possibilities in the debate. It does not just extend to the 'God' question but to ANY debate. You allow someone to put forward supernatural answers to any question and they cannot be proven wrong. To me it does not make logical sense that most people can safely say X is probably true, even when there's numerous possible supernatural explanations but when it comes to God/Angels/Spirits/Jesus/Whatever they say 'Well I guess we'll never know for certain, so let's just say it's an even debate!'.

If you're going to declare that it is impossible to know either way on the God question because God is not falsifiable, then I agree of course I do, but it's impossible to know the answer to any question for certain. I therefore submit that if we do not know whether something exists, i.e. there is currently no evidence of it existing (be it something that really does exist, or does not) that we should, for the time being, declare that it does not exist, until we are presented with new evidence - Just as we do with most supernatural beings that are invented.

 

[The Logical One]

Nobody has any realistic grounds for debate because you're willing to include supernatural possibilities in the debate. It does not just extend to the 'God' question but to ANY debate. You allow someone to put forward supernatural answers to any question and they cannot be proven wrong. To me it does not make logical sense that most people can safely say X is probably true, even when there's numerous possible supernatural explanations but when it comes to God/Angels/Spirits/Jesus/Whatever they say 'Well I guess we'll never know for certain, so let's just say it's an even debate!'.

If you're going to declare that it is impossible to know either way on the God question because God is not falsifiable, then I agree of course I do, but it's impossible to know the answer to any question for certain. I therefore submit that if we do not know whether something exists, i.e. there is currently no evidence of it existing (be it something that really does exist, or does not) that we should, for the time being, declare that it does not exist, until we are presented with new evidence - Just as we do with most supernatural beings that are invented.

All I can say is, lets take this to live-chat, and at the end one side will be declared a winner, the chat will go from now till 1-2am.
Join to contribute ideas! http://chat.deltaanime.net/?t=&c=Does_God_Exist&oc=&gc=

 

[Not-That-Bright]

All I can say is, lets take this to live-chat, and at the end one side will be declared a winner, the chat will go from now till 1-2am.
Join to contribute ideas! http://chat.deltaanime.net/?t=&c=Does_God_Exist&oc=&gc=

No problem sam.

edit: It's not letting me type, or at least I can't see my own text?

 

[The Logical One]

Edit:
No conclusion tonight, oh well. Jay Leno till 1:50am then sleep.

 

[bshoc]

Nobody has any realistic grounds for debate because you're willing to include supernatural possibilities in the debate. It does not just extend to the 'God' question but to ANY debate. You allow someone to put forward supernatural answers to any question and they cannot be proven wrong. To me it does not make logical sense that most people can safely say X is probably true, even when there's numerous possible supernatural explanations but when it comes to God/Angels/Spirits/Jesus/Whatever they say 'Well I guess we'll never know for certain, so let's just say it's an even debate!'.

If you're going to declare that it is impossible to know either way on the God question because God is not falsifiable, then I agree of course I do, but it's impossible to know the answer to any question for certain. I therefore submit that if we do not know whether something exists, i.e. there is currently no evidence of it existing (be it something that really does exist, or does not) that we should, for the time being, declare that it does not exist, until we are presented with new evidence - Just as we do with most supernatural beings that are invented.

Would you agree then that the scientific explanation is no better?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Would you agree then that the scientific explanation is no better?

A natural, scientific explanation will always be better then a supernatural one. The natural ones are falsifiable, testable, the supernatural are not. We don't have a solid scientific explanation of how the universe came into being and at this point in time I'm doubtful that we ever will.

This doesn't mean that the supernatural explanation is then any more viable, as if it is only with a natural explanation that the supernatural explanation is no longer any good. The supernatural explanation still has the faults that it always had.

 

[bshoc]

A natural, scientific explanation will always be better then a supernatural one.

There is no scientific explanation (or proof), there is only scientific speculation. Speculation without proof is all equally worthless.

The natural ones are falsifiable, testable, the supernatural are not. We don't have a solid scientific explanation of how the universe came into being and at this point in time I'm doubtful that we ever will.

Agreed

This doesn't mean that the supernatural explanation is then any more viable,

Agreed again, it is not "more viable" .. but it is not less viable either for reasons explained above.

 

[The Logical One]

There is no scientific explanation (or proof), there is only scientific speculation. Speculation without proof is all equally worthless.



Agreed



Agreed again, it is not "more viable" .. but it is not less viable either for reasons explained above.

There is only scientific speculation, and it therefore leaves room for improvement and disproving the argument. But, how about the hardcore 7-day theory people? They are almost totally convinced that the universe could be less then 10,000 years old. That is physically impossible, and using religion to make such arguments is just plain stupidity.

Even if it was possible are you saying our god wants us to be retarded? and disregard scientific information which we can prove because of only one book which was made almost 2,000 years ago? Be logical....

We must consider both angles equally, and be open-minded. It is however still the most plausible answer that god created the 'universe', fine, but don't bar scientific discovery just because it could prove you wrong.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

There is no scientific explanation (or proof), there is only scientific speculation. Speculation without proof is all equally worthless.

I know that there's not with regard to God, the God question is generally outside of the realm of science... as is santa claus, the tooth fairy, magic dragons, the loch ness monster, our reality being a dream, etc etc - The problem is that all these claims are not falsifiable.

Agreed again, it is not "more viable" .. but it is not less viable either for reasons explained above.

I didn't mean more viable than a scientific explanation, I meant that supernatural explanations are not viable at all and the absence of scientific explanation does not make them any more viable - they're still not viable at all. I don't know whether a God does or does not exist, like you I accept that DEFINITE knowledge on the matter will never be accessible to us... but I go even further, I don't think that we can have definite knowledge about anything especially with the possibility of supernatural phenomenon.

 

[bshoc]

I know that there's not with regard to God, the God question is generally outside of the realm of science... as is santa claus, the tooth fairy, magic dragons, the loch ness monster, our reality being a dream, etc etc - The problem is that all these claims are not falsifiable.

And what of the wonderful things within the realm of science, eugenics for example? Or perpahs the other hundreds of outmoded fields? As many scientific ideas have been thrown out as religious ones, god and toothfairies aren't the same, becuase you're equating something imaginary (intentionally created that way) for entertainment value to something that is clearly espoused by billions of people worldwide as a creationary model. You're the opposite of christians yet the same, same blind conviction, just different ideas, you take cheapshots to cheapen the convictions of others.

Call it what you want, speculation will always be speculation, nothing more, and nothing more viable.

I didn't mean more viable than a scientific explanation, I meant that supernatural explanations are not viable at all and the absence of scientific explanation does not make them any more viable - they're still not viable at all. I don't know whether a God does or does not exist, like you I accept that DEFINITE knowledge on the matter will never be accessible to us... but I go even further, I don't think that we can have definite knowledge about anything especially with the possibility of supernatural phenomenon.

And that's what prevents you from being objective, you discount one view becuase you have your own preconceptions, the bing bang theory for example is just a supernatural as the god theory without any hard sciences backing it (and by that I mean provable and verifyable, eugenics also hard "hard science" backing), plus you have the dilemma that god made the big bang in the first place (the double layer dilemma). If we take christians for their word, god is hardly supernatural, but rather the definition of what is natural (e.g. drop the "super").

 

[Not-That-Bright]

And what of the wonderful things within the realm of science, eugenics for example? Or perpahs the other hundreds of outmoded fields? As many scientific ideas have been thrown out as religious ones

Er this is how you respond to me pointing out that supernatural claims are not falsifiable? a weak attack on science? As for ideas being thrown out, I support that... thrown out upon contradictory evidence comming up. Until such evidence comes up, they are valid as the evidence which supports them is still valid. The fact that in the past ideas have been wrong is no way of disproving the current ideas, you have to actually disprove it with evidence. This is the beauty of science and what makes it great.

With the eugenics example, all that the scientific backing shows is that eugenics could lead to smarter/healthier/etc people, those aren't the only considerations in our society. Yes, science can be used to show that theory X will lead to greater outcome Y & Z but Eugenics is essentially a social theory that advocates that it is right to breed a society towards those goals. There is no way to scientifically 'prove' such a question, it will be up to the people to decide what sort of society they want.

god and toothfairies aren't the same, becuase you're equating something imaginary (intentionally created that way) for entertainment value to something that is clearly espoused by billions of people worldwide as a creationary model.

No, for all logical purposes they are the same. Just because you think something has been created 'for entertainment value' doesn't mean the possibility of it existing is any less than something that billions of people claim really does exist. I also used the example of 'our life is a dream', that's not created for entertainment value.

Seriously, that's a pretty weak response... essentially saying 'Well this supernatural belief is believed by alot of people, your examples are not', it doesn't matter and I doubt you really do think it matters.

Call it what you want, speculation will always be speculation, nothing more, and nothing more viable.

So you reject all claims equally because we can never know for certain? I say 'I exist', you say 'Well I can't know you exist for certain, you might just be a part of my dream' ? It seems like you'd never be able to decide anything if you truly thought that way. When you go to cross the street, do you check to make sure the ground isn't going to cave in and swallow you up? No, you think it'll be solid based on past knowledge.

And that's what prevents you from being objective, you discount one view becuase you have your own preconceptions

Err... Well you have your own preconceptions and you discount my view, therefore you're not objective? Seriously lol. I made it very clear that I accept that the central agnostic stance will always be more justifiable than any other. It seems pretty clear to me that we can't know anything for certain.

the bing bang theory for example is just a supernatural as the god theory without any hard sciences backing it

The big bang theory is one possibility based off what evidence and physics tells us, it is falsifiable, it does rest on hard science. It isn't supernatural at all, it makes conclusions about what may have happened based off of evidence, if that evidence comes to contradict what has been laid out as possibly happening (as it has in the past) the theory will need to be revisited.

plus you have the dilemma that god made the big bang in the first place (the double layer dilemma).

Doesn't bother me much at all, it's really the same as saying 'plus you have the dilemma that maybe your life is really a dream, so how can you say you're male?' or 'maybe a wizard just tricked you into believing you were male'. All these things are of equal possibility if you want to accept supernatural claims as being possible. I do accept that they are ultimately possible, it may be the objective truth that I am really a computer-program in a lab being made to believe I exist in this reality, or that I was magically brainwashed by some aliens...

If we take christians for their word, god is hardly supernatural, but rather the definition of what is natural (e.g. drop the "super").

If christians can measure god, or demonstrate him in some real way, then he will be natural. Until then he's supernatural.

The supernatural (Latin: super- "exceeding" + nature) refers to forces and phenomena which are are not observed in nature, and therefore beyond verifiable measurement. If a phenomenon can be demonstrated, it can no longer be considered supernatural. Because phenomena must be subjected to verifiable measurement and peer review to be considered as a scientific theory, science cannot approach the supernatural; see scientific method.

 

[Generator]

bshoc, the scientific process was constructed so that scientists could continually propose, test and discard different scientific hypotheses, so I really don't know what you are trying to prove by claiming that there's something wrong with a process that discards notions that are no longer considered to be credible.

 

[Aznpsycho]

'Hate' is a bit of a misnomer - and opens up the inevitable strawman flingin' of "hurr, hypocritical intolerant atheist lol" and the strawman counterfling of "hurr, mindless superstitious dummy lol".

I'll try to compress my aversion to religions and any non-rationalist ideology in several relatively concise and coherent points.

Too many mutually exclusive and inconsistent religions out there

Lets not try and fall into the eurocentric trap of assuming that Judeo-Christianity is the end all and be all of religion. There are many many religions out there, ranging from nature spirit worship, ancestor worship, monotheism, and the bizarre overly human pantheon of the Greeks and Romans. All of these, especially the monotheistic ones, carry the implication that that particular mode of religion is the 'correct' one, and everything else is incorrect. Unlike, say, the difference between the Earth is a sphere or a flat surface, or that water boils at 1 atm and 373K, these various belief systems all rely on unquantifiable metaphysics, and is therefore utterly dependent on human beings. My understanding of human nature is such that we are way too fickle to and mentally unstable to ever have a consistent way of understanding the world using any metaphysical construct, and hence religions all religions may as well be ranked on the same level using such a qualifier.

Note that I am opening myself up to the inevitable argument that 'science' is a mode of belief just like all those religions I am abusing. This is incorrect - science is a technique, and does not rely on the same wishy-washy reasoning that metaphysics rely on. Your point is hence bogus.

The persecution complex

I will be the first to admit it - atheist (strictly speaking I'm agnostic, but I'm leaning more on the atheist end) will happily indulge in persecution complexes. Whether they are real or imaginary is irrelevant - it is safer to blame a lack of progress on the malice of others than your own merits. Christianity, on the other hand, takes the cake with the persecution complex. Christianity was born in persecution - the fish and 666 all originate from the Roman Emperors feeding the Christians to the lions. Now that people who define themselves as 'Christians' currently make up the largest portion of the world's population, this attitude is rendered moot. Despite this, Christians, in my personal experience, will happily harp on about how their political and moral attitudes are not being met by the community at large, despite being one of the larger communities out there.

Note that I just fell into the trap I mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Silly me.

How it is unreasonable to take anything religious literally, yet this is presented as the only option

Yet again, I speak on Christianity, simply because it is the one I have had the most experience and understanding with. Little of anything in the Bible can be interpreted as anything but a metaphor. From the springing of human consciousness and free will from a state of blissful stupidity, to the 7 days creation thing, trying to interpret these things literally will simply lead you into a logical dead end and drive those who cannot subordinate their minds to pure faith away. The solution to this is to 'cherrypick', that is, use only the bits which are socially relevant and ethically sound. For some reason or another, this is taken as the worst kind of sacrilege amongst many religious types. Of course, this is probably due to prior experience with fundementalists, but what do I know?

I would also like to address a couple of other points brought up earlier:

Church and State make for poor bedfellows

Let us go back to the original definition of Politics. It is, simply, the acquisition, and retention of power. I make a rather sweeping definition, but I find it both relevant and consistent. Politics exists everywhere, it is an undeniable part of human nature. Get 3 people together, and there will be someone leading, and someone following. Therefore, even in a theocracy, where everything is suborned to divine intervention, there will be plenty politiking within it. A point of having a theocracy is suborning all decisions to the divine will of god, which leaves little room for (rational) political discourse. This suppression of politics underground tends to manifest itself in (democratically) unsavoury ways, from witchhunts to painful inquisitions. This phenomena will happily manifest itself in societies where the political system stops being benign, and a superficial show of unity is expected (case in point: Communist Russia). This leads me onto my next point...

Communism and Nationalism supplanting and substituting more 'traditional' religions

It is an extremely strong argument that Communism and Nazism were political efforts to replace traditional icons of worship with more...physical forms. This distinction is particularly evident in Stalinist Russia, with hymms to Father Iosef Stalin being sung in praise of him bringing the sun up (sadly, I lack a source besides my trusty Modern History teacher). This is why Cheesman's obsession with how the darstardly atheists have killed more people than the Christians is one of the most retarded things I have ever read. Which brings me to yet another point...

If they do something sane human beings find morally repugnant, they are not on my side, even if they say they are and did it in the same name as me

I love how Robbie and Cheesman brush off human beings being assholes to other human beings as being a sole symptom of atheism.

So, there we have it folks. Thank the good lord that it's Sunday tomorrow, so that I can sleep in. Note that my post has been steadily getting more incomprehensible, as a function of distance down the page. Thank you, and Good Night!

 

[The Logical One]

'Hate' is a bit of a misnomer - and opens up the inevitable strawman flingin' of "hurr, hypocritical intolerant atheist lol" and the strawman counterfling of "hurr, mindless superstitious dummy lol".

I'll try to compress my aversion to religions and any non-rationalist ideology in several relatively concise and coherent points.

Too many mutually exclusive and inconsistent religions out there

Lets not try and fall into the eurocentric trap of assuming that Judeo-Christianity is the end all and be all of religion. There are many many religions out there, ranging from nature spirit worship, ancestor worship, monotheism, and the bizarre overly human pantheon of the Greeks and Romans. All of these, especially the monotheistic ones, carry the implication that that particular mode of religion is the 'correct' one, and everything else is incorrect. Unlike, say, the difference between the Earth is a sphere or a flat surface, or that water boils at 1 atm and 373K, these various belief systems all rely on unquantifiable metaphysics, and is therefore utterly dependent on human beings. My understanding of human nature is such that we are way too fickle to and mentally unstable to ever have a consistent way of understanding the world using any metaphysical construct, and hence religions all religions may as well be ranked on the same level using such a qualifier.

Note that I am opening myself up to the inevitable argument that 'science' is a mode of belief just like all those religions I am abusing. This is incorrect - science is a technique, and does not rely on the same wishy-washy reasoning that metaphysics rely on. Your point is hence bogus.

The persecution complex

I will be the first to admit it - atheist (strictly speaking I'm agnostic, but I'm leaning more on the atheist end) will happily indulge in persecution complexes. Whether they are real or imaginary is irrelevant - it is safer to blame a lack of progress on the malice of others than your own merits. Christianity, on the other hand, takes the cake with the persecution complex. Christianity was born in persecution - the fish and 666 all originate from the Roman Emperors feeding the Christians to the lions. Now that people who define themselves as 'Christians' currently make up the largest portion of the world's population, this attitude is rendered moot. Despite this, Christians, in my personal experience, will happily harp on about how their political and moral attitudes are not being met by the community at large, despite being one of the larger communities out there.

Note that I just fell into the trap I mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Silly me.

How it is unreasonable to take anything religious literally, yet this is presented as the only option

Yet again, I speak on Christianity, simply because it is the one I have had the most experience and understanding with. Little of anything in the Bible can be interpreted as anything but a metaphor. From the springing of human consciousness and free will from a state of blissful stupidity, to the 7 days creation thing, trying to interpret these things literally will simply lead you into a logical dead end and drive those who cannot subordinate their minds to pure faith away. The solution to this is to 'cherrypick', that is, use only the bits which are socially relevant and ethically sound. For some reason or another, this is taken as the worst kind of sacrilege amongst many religious types. Of course, this is probably due to prior experience with fundementalists, but what do I know?

I would also like to address a couple of other points brought up earlier:

Church and State make for poor bedfellows

Let us go back to the original definition of Politics. It is, simply, the acquisition, and retention of power. I make a rather sweeping definition, but I find it both relevant and consistent. Politics exists everywhere, it is an undeniable part of human nature. Get 3 people together, and there will be someone leading, and someone following. Therefore, even in a theocracy, where everything is suborned to divine intervention, there will be plenty politiking within it. A point of having a theocracy is suborning all decisions to the divine will of god, which leaves little room for (rational) political discourse. This suppression of politics underground tends to manifest itself in (democratically) unsavoury ways, from witchhunts to painful inquisitions. This phenomena will happily manifest itself in societies where the political system stops being benign, and a superficial show of unity is expected (case in point: Communist Russia). This leads me onto my next point...

Communism and Nationalism supplanting and substituting more 'traditional' religions

It is an extremely strong argument that Communism and Nazism were political efforts to replace traditional icons of worship with more...physical forms. This distinction is particularly evident in Stalinist Russia, with hymms to Father Iosef Stalin being sung in praise of him bringing the sun up (sadly, I lack a source besides my trusty Modern History teacher). This is why Cheesman's obsession with how the darstardly atheists have killed more people than the Christians is one of the most retarded things I have ever read. Which brings me to yet another point...

If they do something sane human beings find morally repugnant, they are not on my side, even if they say they are and did it in the same name as me

I love how Robbie and Cheesman brush off human beings being assholes to other human beings as being a sole symptom of atheism.

So, there we have it folks. Thank the good lord that it's Sunday tomorrow, so that I can sleep in. Note that my post has been steadily getting more incomprehensible, as a function of distance down the page. Thank you, and Good Night!

this was all copypasta... you didn't type it out.

 

[Aznpsycho]

this was all copypasta... you didn't type it out.

What. The. Fuck.

I expected poorly punctuated and incoherent replies. I expected gigantic rambling lists of quotes and the hurr rebuttals to them. I did not, could not, and should not expect this.

Oh BoS. How you surprised me before, and you shall surprise me again. I shall never expect and intend to predict anything ye throw at me again.

I will, however, take that as a compliment in that I am a more intelligent human being than you.