Why the religious hate atheists and an epiphany on what god really is

By Dan8267   follow   Mon, 3 Sep 2012, 12:00pm PDT   ↑ Like (6)   ↓ Dislike (4)   39,156 views   182 comments   Watch (3)   Share   Quote  

Because I was constantly being told that I'm rejecting God, and I knew that wasn't true, I decided to research rejection, which made me aware of its effects. My studies took me in a completely unexpected direction. The epiphany (pun intended) was rather shocking. The evidence indicates that the personal god is a manifestation of the ego, which explains a plethora of theistic tendencies, including their typical dislike of atheists, who theists subconsciously perceive to be rejecting a part of themselves. God is Tyler Durden; and the first rule of Jesus Club is you have to talk about Jesus Club.

« First     « Previous     Comments 143-182 of 182     Last »

thunderlips11   befriend (12)   ignore (2)   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 6:50am PDT   Like   Dislike (2)     Share   Quote   Comment 143


"Uphold Science, Eradicate Superstition"

Raw   befriend (0)   ignore (0)   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 7:46am PDT   Like   Dislike (1)     Share   Quote   Comment 144

curious2 says

A Noble prize winner in physics (forget his name) said.....

The name you're looking for is Steven Weinberg, and there are two versions of the quote (one from a conference, the other from a subsequent article). The final version, from the article:

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."

Thanks curious.

Raw   befriend (0)   ignore (0)   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 7:51am PDT   Like   Dislike (1)     Share   Quote   Comment 145

Cloud says

Steve Wein who?

he he he
Hard to keep up with so many brilliant atheist scientists, isn't it?
The next time a scientist invents something that makes your life better or even saves your life......remember it was probably an atheist.
:)

Bigsby   befriend (0)   ignore (14)   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 10:32am PDT   Like   Dislike (1)     Share   Quote   Comment 146

Cloud says

Still waiting for your list by the way...

What list? Are you still talking about a list of atheists? Just pick your scientists. And given the % of scientists who are atheist, perhaps you should stop posting about scientists from centuries ago who were believers. Times change.

Raw   befriend (0)   ignore (0)   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 10:49am PDT   Like   Dislike (1)     Share   Quote   Comment 147

Cloud says

Still waiting for your list by the way...

I already sent it. Not just 5, but hundreds.
Check comment #125.
For your convenience I am resending the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

Bigsby   befriend (0)   ignore (14)   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 10:50am PDT   Like   Dislike (1)     Share   Quote   Comment 148

Ah, that firm believer Einstein. I don't know how many scientists will be remembered, do I? Most people can only name a handful, if that, but that doesn't mean they haven't made enormous contributions to society. They have. Just list all the great scientists there have been in the last 50 years say and tell me how many of those are/were believers.
And I see you've resorted to name calling again. I'm not going to respond in kind - it would be too easy.

Raw   befriend (0)   ignore (0)   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 10:54am PDT   Like   Dislike (1)     Share   Quote   Comment 149

Cloud says

The reason no atheist here wants to hand love over to me is because they can't; and yet they use the word their whole misguided life.

You really are hung up about love aren't you?
what exactly do you want? A valentine card?

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 11:33am PDT   Like   Dislike (1)     Share   Quote   Comment 150

Raw says

Cloud says

The reason no atheist here wants to hand love over to me is because they can't; and yet they use the word their whole misguided life.

You really are hung up about love aren't you?
what exactly do you want?

Maybe Cloud's parents gave too much love to their god(s), and had none left for Cloud. It would be interesting to study whether religious parents are more likely to have excessively needy children. Along with the increased risk of child mortality associated with religions that refuse medical care, this might become an argument for prohibiting religious people from getting married, at least to each other. Personally, I support marriage equality, but some of the more religious posters don't.

Raw   befriend (0)   ignore (0)   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 11:41am PDT   Like   Dislike (1)     Share   Quote   Comment 151

Cloud? Does your God love this innocent child?
http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/vulture-stalking-a-child/

Bigsby   befriend (0)   ignore (14)   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 8:43pm PDT   Like   Dislike (1)     Share   Quote   Comment 152

Cloud, just grow up.

freak80   befriend (0)   ignore (6)   Tue, 11 Sep 2012, 1:52am PDT   Like (2)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 153

Parents shouldn't be allowed to brainwash their children with their ideology. Children should be brainwashed with MY ideology! ;-)

Dan8267   befriend (17)   ignore (11)   Tue, 11 Sep 2012, 2:58am PDT   Like   Dislike (2)     Share   Quote   Comment 154

The First Amendment doesn't cover:
1. Threats of violence.
2. Slander and liable.
3. Cyberstalking.
4. False reporting of emergencies.
5. Perjury.
6. Violations of personal privacy including posting kiddie porn.
7. Corporate speech including spam.

Any comments that violate those rules will be deleted. So far, you have been the only person on any of my threads to violate any of those rules. As long as you don't violate those rules, you're free to post any bat-shit crazy thing you want. Of course, others are free to demonstrate how bat-shit crazy you are.

Anyone is free to argue that the First Amendment should cover one of the above exceptions, but given that the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the citizens from government and keep government as honest and transparent as possible, I doubt there's much ground to make such a case as the exceptions all deal with protecting individual persons and their rights.

Dan8267   befriend (17)   ignore (11)   Tue, 11 Sep 2012, 11:41am PDT   Like   Dislike (2)     Share   Quote   Comment 155

Cloud says

Dan, I just want to know if you think the government should protect in accordance with The First Amendment (with force if necessary) a person's right to assemble and have a religion?

Yes, if a armed person is shooting people for attending church, the government should take him down.

Conversely, if the any politician passes a law granting privileges to any religion or forcing a religious belief on any person, that politician should be banned from government.

Cloud says

By the way, interesting that this is the first of the Bill of Rights.

The whole reason it's in the Bill of Rights is that the founding fathers came from an England in which the Catholics and the protestants were actively slaughtering each other. The First Amendment is a reaction to that.

That said, the First Amendment does not mean that religion gets to be privileged. Nor does it mean that Christian mythology is allowed to determine secular legislation. Nor does it mean that the people can't actively call out religion for the bullshit it is and discourage such irrational thought and behavior.

Finally, when forced to choose between freedom of speech and freedom of religion by the religious, I'll always side with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech trumps freedom of religion. So when your religion prevents people from free speech as in the case of profanity on television and radio, free speech takes precedence. Freedom to marry whomever you want also takes precedence over other people's religion, and this includes gay marriage.

Bap33   befriend (3)   ignore (6)   Thu, 13 Sep 2012, 4:22am PDT   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Share   Quote   Comment 156

Dan8267 says

. Perjury.

Quick question Dan: In order to be convicted of purjury, do you have to be "under oath"? If so, who or what is the oath sworn to?

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Thu, 13 Sep 2012, 4:27am PDT   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Share   Quote   Comment 157

Bap33 says

do you have to be "under oath"?

Oath or affirmation, in a government setting, e.g. court testimony, judicial depositions, official investigations. For example, when a baseball player is required to testify before Congress, he is warned that if he lies he may be prosecuted for perjury. The oath or affirmation is to the forum itself, either judicial, legislative, or executive; the legal penalty is in essence for breach of a social contract.

There is no legal penalty for lying to a preacher though, so next time you go to confession, feel free to go nuts. "Father, last night three women and I got stuck at the top of a ferris wheel for five hours. The night before...."

Dan8267   befriend (17)   ignore (11)   Thu, 13 Sep 2012, 4:38am PDT   Like (1)   Dislike (2)     Share   Quote   Comment 158

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

. Perjury.

Quick question Dan: In order to be convicted of purjury, do you have to be "under oath"? If so, who or what is the oath sworn to?

Not your god. Perjury is a crime because all parties involved in a testimony freely agree that it should be a crime to lie in the testimony. This is done so that all parties can have a certain degree of trust in each others statements regarding facts. The agreement is between the state and the parties making the agreement. There is no supernatural being necessary for this legal contract.

As a liberal, i.e. someone who believes in liberty and personal self-determination, I strongly hold the opinion that no one should be forced into such an agreement under any circumstances and that if they are, the agreement is not valid or even a real "agreement".

Hence, I do not support perjury charges on anything that you are forced to sign including IRS tax returns. Now, I'm not advocating lying on tax returns, but since you are forced to fill them out against your will, it should not carry a perjury charge. Actually, I don't think you should be forced to give government any information you don't want as it violates both the First and Fifth Amendments, but that's another story.

Similarly, I don't believe that people in court should be required to take an oath or answer all questions. A defendant should be able to choose which questions he/she wishes to answer and to what extent. The prosecution, however, should not since it's not their ass on the line.

thunderlips11   befriend (12)   ignore (2)   Thu, 13 Sep 2012, 5:14am PDT   Like   Dislike (1)     Share   Quote   Comment 159

Some folks really, really, need an ultimate authority figure to appeal to. Ironically, these people are usually the noisiest complaining about freedom:

"What, McDonalds has to post calorie information by law? That's an assault on freedom!"

Dan8267   befriend (17)   ignore (11)   Thu, 13 Sep 2012, 5:31am PDT   Like (2)   Dislike (2)     Share   Quote   Comment 160

thunderlips11 says

Some folks really, really, need an ultimate authority figure to appeal to. Ironically, these people are usually the noisiest complaining about freedom:

"What, McDonalds has to post calorie information by law? That's an assault on freedom!"

Homo Economicus. A Legendary Creature, like Bigfoot, claimed to exist by Pseudoscientists.

They appeal to authority when they try to get their draconian laws passed, but appeal to freedom when anyone places a reasonable restriction on business to protect the consumer, employee, or competition.

What are regulations? They are laws to prevent criminal behavior by corporations. But because the laws apply to corporations rather than the individuals, we call them "regulations" instead of "laws" and imply that they are a bad thing. Why don't we get rid of regulation of drug use, how much clothing one has to wear in pubic, and the content of speech on public airwaves?

But this goes back to why monotheists insist that there must be a god, but then also insist that there must be only one. If you have more than one god, they can disagree, which means they can disagree with the draconian propositions of the believer.

All the false arguments that our universe must have a creator would also apply to our universe having many creators. And doesn't cooperation in the creation of a complex thing make more sense than one entity doing it all?

Dan8267   befriend (17)   ignore (11)   Thu, 6 Dec 2012, 8:56pm PST   Like   Dislike (2)     Share   Quote   Comment 161

@Patrick,

Hey, what happened to all the comments in this thread? The comment count shows 218, but there are no comments being displayed.

Patrick   befriend (64)   ignore (4)   Fri, 7 Dec 2012, 2:14am PST   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 162

OK, fixed now. Thanks for telling me! It was a problem where deleting spam caused the comment number stored in the threads table to get out of sync with the real number of comments.

Please tell me about any more bugs to fix, or suggestions for improvement.

thunderlips11   befriend (12)   ignore (2)   Sun, 9 Dec 2012, 2:25am PST   Like   Dislike (2)     Share   Quote   Comment 163

Dan8267 says

What are regulations? They are laws to prevent criminal behavior by corporations. But because the laws apply to corporations rather than the individuals, we call them "regulations" instead of "laws" and imply that they are a bad thing. Why don't we get rid of regulation of drug use, how much clothing one has to wear in pubic, and the content of speech on public airwaves?

Jesus Dan, this is gold.

Restrictions on personal behavior - upholding "standards of decency." (ie stopping shit I find "icky" or bothersome for some reason I can't exactly put my finger on but something to do with tradition.)

Restrictions on the use of property - an assault on freedom.

Peter P   befriend (5)   ignore (4)   Sun, 9 Dec 2012, 7:35am PST   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 164

thunderlips11 says

"Uphold Science, Eradicate Superstition"

Whoever said that was trying to sell their own belief system.

Peter P   befriend (5)   ignore (4)   Sun, 9 Dec 2012, 7:39am PST   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Share   Quote   Comment 165

There are many religious atheists. They are religiously rejecting other belief systems.

Truthplease   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Sun, 9 Dec 2012, 10:34am PST   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 166

thunderlips11 says

Dan8267 says

But more dangerous. If religion takes off in Russia, it could cause them to be the next Afghanistan only with nukes.

Don't worry, it won't. It's just respect for tradition, and goes it mostly no deeper than St. Patrick's Day, Clovers, and Green Beer. Of course, there are always a few old farts that get all mystical as they approach death.

I think Putin thinks sponsoring Orthodoxy is important because the US is trying to encircle and fragment Russia, so it gives the Russians a piece of national identity. Not that I think the US project to break Russia into a thousand pieces has any chance of success either way.

When you compare the USA to the Nazis, it shows your ignorance. You are ignorant of the world Dan; very ignorant.

thunderlips11   befriend (12)   ignore (2)   Sun, 9 Dec 2012, 11:32pm PST   Like (1)   Dislike (2)     Share   Quote   Comment 167

Truthplease says

When you compare the USA to the Nazis, it shows your ignorance. You are ignorant of the world Dan; very ignorant.

Who compared USA to the Nazis?

You want to see a real Nazi threat, take a look over here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219684

Dan8267   befriend (17)   ignore (11)   Mon, 10 Dec 2012, 2:10am PST   Like (2)   Dislike (2)     Share   Quote   Comment 168

Peter P says

There are many religious atheists. They are religiously rejecting other belief systems.

Keep fucking that chicken and I'll keep posting this retort.

If you can't demonstrate that Maher's analysis is wrong, then your assertion must be.

Dan8267   befriend (17)   ignore (11)   Mon, 10 Dec 2012, 2:23am PST   Like (1)   Dislike (2)     Share   Quote   Comment 169

Truthplease says

When you compare the USA to the Nazis, it shows your ignorance. You are ignorant of the world Dan; very ignorant.

1. I did not compare the USA to the Nazis.

2. If I do compare the USA to the Nazis I'll have a damn good reason and if you cannot show that the reason is bad, then such a comparison is valid.

3. There are ways in which our government is like the Nazi regime For example, our government completely lacks respect for human life as demonstrated by the fact that our government tortured innocent people in Gitmo and other secret prisons. Now that's exactly the kind of values one would associate with Nazis.

One of the above images is from Nazi Germany, and the other is from Gitmo as ran by the USA. Notice the similarities.

OK, Truthplease, now that I've actually made a comparison between the USA and the Nazis, specifically that the US's use of torture centers mirrors the morality of the Nazis, let's see how use justify that torture done by the US is somehow morally superior to torture done by the Nazis.

Of course, you could live up to your handle, truthplease, and admit that the evils done by any nation are almost certainly by every other nation capable of getting away with it.

Oh, and if that example isn't enough... The Nazis are most well-known for genocide. Of course, their genocide was nowhere near the scope of the genocide committed by the United States against the Native Americans. Our government wiped out an entire continent of people. Oh, please challenge me on the premise that the US committed genocide. Please do. I'd love to go into detail about how our government has blocked international anti-genocide laws precisely because it knows it is guilty of genocide.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Mon, 10 Dec 2012, 4:16am PST   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Share   Quote   Comment 170

Peter P says

There are many religious atheists. They are religiously rejecting other belief systems.

Bill Maher via Dan already refuted this above.

I would add an issue of motivation. What you call "religiously rejecting" is, I think, more likely the political response to organized religion hijacking American government. It isn't about reciting "Jehovah doesn't exist" as a mantra expecting supernatural intervention from the ghost of Christopher Hitchens. The issue is that American government confers enormous subsidy and privilege upon anything the IRS certifies as a "bona fide" religion. Romney's cult has amassed over $30 billion and wields terrible political power. The Pope controls $2 billion personally plus the vast resources of the Vatican, plus the Knights of Columbus (basically the mafia, they don't even pretend to be a charity). Objecting to their influence is like objecting to the more far-fetched claims of chiropractic. Public money shouldn't be subsidizing organizations that take $ under false pretenses. And, on the subject of money, for most of American history it didn't all say "In God we trust." The founders rejected religious mottoes in favor of "e pluribus unum" (out of many, one) and the more ambiguous "annuit coeptis" (the eye of providence is watching). The original pledge of allegiance did not say "one nation under god," it said "one nation indivisible." The currency and pledge were deliberately changed in the 1950s for the sole purpose of fusing American and religious symbols. When any organized lobby tries to take over the government, which belongs to everyone, it is logical to expect a reaction. BTW, only two groups of people are exempt from Obamacare's insurance mandate: illegal aliens and adherents of "bona fide" religions recognized by the IRS who object on religious grounds; no other objection is permitted, only "bona fide" religious objection.

Truthplease   befriend (1)   ignore (1)   Mon, 10 Dec 2012, 9:52am PST   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 171

Wrong Dan, that picture isn't Gitmo. That picture is Abu ghraib. I am sure you believe Abu ghraib is just like the nazi death camps. In that case, you are wrong. The USA's morality isn't even relevant guy, the nazis purposely tried to extinguish a race of people. Abu ghraib was more like the Stanford prison experiment. www.prisonexp.org

thunderlips11   befriend (12)   ignore (2)   Mon, 10 Dec 2012, 10:36am PST   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 172

We don't have any info on Gitmo. We only have the government's word. We do have people who were wrongfully imprisoned AND tortured trying to sue the US government, but not getting anywhere because the Judges fall for the National Security BS and dismiss their claims as too harmful to national security to be revealed.

That means to me they have a leg to stand on.

BTW, we hung Japanese Officers for waterboarding. WW2 Vets must be turning in their grave.

curious2   befriend (4)   ignore (5)   Mon, 10 Dec 2012, 10:58am PST   Like (2)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 173

thunderlips11 says

Japanese Officers for waterboarding

...were hanged. Returning to the original topic, you can see the difference. When GW Bush ordered the American military to invade Iraq, he was acting on orders from God (tm). Therefore, everything they did, including waterboarding, was the will of God (tm). So it was all good. In contrast, when Japanese Buddhists used waterboarding, they didn't have God (tm) on their side - not W's God anyway. They had some fat giggling lesser "god" on their side, not the muscular, iron-pumping Real God (tm) that W believes in. Of course, to an atheist, waterboarding is the same no matter who does it, so if it's bad when the perpetrators are Japanese Buddhists then it's equally bad when the perpetrators are American Christians (tm). Applying the same rules to Americans as to foreigners is unpatriotic, and siding with foreigners against Americans is un-American, which means atheists hate America. Get it?