Hatred of religion

[Penelope]

Historically, most religions have earned contempt and distrust.

For many good reasons as well.

No, not really. Atheist jackasses like to blame their own violence on *religion*. When really, the examples they use are almost without exception examples of anti-religion STATES behaving in a disgusting and barbaric manner.

Most wars begin due to religion and or religion is used as an excuse. Even this was to get rid of religion:


This section became known as Yevsektsia (alternative spelling: Yevsektsiya — the acronym of the department name in Russian) and was run by Jews.

These Jewish communists were incredibly ruthless in stamping out any type of religious activity by fellow Jews. They killed rabbis, closed the yeshivos and synagogues, banned all religious practices, and enforced it by getting friends to turn in neighbors, children to turn in parents and send them to Siberia for observing the religion. It was the Yevsektsia more than anything else that destroyed the Jewish community in Russia. (by Rabbi Berel Wein)

http://www.jewishhistory.org/jewish-europe-between-the-wars/

http://www.jewishdestiny.com/about/team-destiny

 

[koshergrl]

Historically, most religions have earned contempt and distrust.

For many good reasons as well.

No, not really. Atheist jackasses like to blame their own violence on *religion*. When really, the examples they use are almost without exception examples of anti-religion STATES behaving in a disgusting and barbaric manner.

Most wars begin due to religion and or religion is used as an excuse. Even this was to get rid of religion:


This section became known as Yevsektsia (alternative spelling: Yevsektsiya — the acronym of the department name in Russian) and was run by Jews.

These Jewish communists were incredibly ruthless in stamping out any type of religious activity by fellow Jews. They killed rabbis, closed the yeshivos and synagogues, banned all religious practices, and enforced it by getting friends to turn in neighbors, children to turn in parents and send them to Siberia for observing the religion. It was the Yevsektsia more than anything else that destroyed the Jewish community in Russia. (by Rabbi Berel Wein)

http://www.jewishhistory.org/jewish-europe-between-the-wars/

http://www.jewishdestiny.com/about/team-destiny

Yes, the state cites religion as an excuse. I know. That's what I said.

When the state decides what religion people shall be, or not be, that is when people die. It isn't generally the religion itself (except in the case of Islam, where state and religion are one...and it's still the same. )

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why is it so trendy today to attack religion? Historically communist regimes and ideologues such as Karl Marx were the biggest adversaries to religion, because they wanted people to have nothing to trust in other than the state. Coincidentally most atheists today are also progressives who look to "science" and government to offer them meaning.

I fear the popularity of attacking religion is being primarily influenced by cultural Marxism and progressivism, and just like the Soviet Union, the end result won't be pretty.

This fails as a straw man fallacy, the thread premise is as ignorant as it is wrong and ridiculous.

Disagreeing with theists is not to "hate" religion.

To oppose the arrogance, bigotry, and racism that is far too often the consequence of practiced religious dogma is not to "hate" religion.

Denouncing theists who advocate that doctors who perform lawful abortions be "murdered" is not to "hate" religion.

 

[ChrisL]

Why is it so trendy today to attack religion? Historically communist regimes and ideologues such as Karl Marx were the biggest adversaries to religion, because they wanted people to have nothing to trust in other than the state. Coincidentally most atheists today are also progressives who look to "science" and government to offer them meaning.

I fear the popularity of attacking religion is being primarily influenced by cultural Marxism and progressivism, and just like the Soviet Union, the end result won't be pretty.

I share your fear. One of the common arguments against religion is that it's an old idea that is worn out, unevolved. Folks mouthing that argument fail to see that they themselves are latching onto old worn out ideas. They seem to think they are more modern about it, that they are choosing to dismiss God and instead choosing the State, but it's really the same old thing.

The "state" has nothing to do with it. I don't worship any states or men/women either. Sorry that some of you NEED something to worship.

 

[ChrisL]

Heaven knows (lol) that if anyone disagrees with a religious person and says so, that the religious are being "persecuted." Oh, you poor martyrs.

 

[ChrisL]

Why is it so trendy today to attack religion? Historically communist regimes and ideologues such as Karl Marx were the biggest adversaries to religion, because they wanted people to have nothing to trust in other than the state. Coincidentally most atheists today are also progressives who look to "science" and government to offer them meaning.

I fear the popularity of attacking religion is being primarily influenced by cultural Marxism and progressivism, and just like the Soviet Union, the end result won't be pretty.

Maybe because the bible, the torah and the koran are all huge loads of bs.

Thank you Jesus that liberals reject them and have killed 50 million and counting liberals since 1973


.

So thanking Jesus for 50 million deaths is a Christian thing?

Btw, when you get to hell, remember, don't pass Adolf the salt.

Totally. They call themselves "moral," yet they happily applaud the murder of those they disagree with. They are so ignorant and annoying.

 

[ChrisL]

“One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think—though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one—that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.”
― Christopher Hitchens

Exactly.

 

[ChrisL]

Martin Luther was a proponent of religion. He deplored the corruption of the church. Two different things.

First, can we agree that there is a difference between seeking a closer connection to God and dogmatic religions?

Second, while you are correct, so am I: Martin Luther attacked the Catholic religion. Wars were fought over the differences.

Religion is a tool; a means to bring one closer to God. A major problem within many religions is some believe the religion is a goal by itself and not simply the tool to the real goal: a greater understanding of God and our own existence.

And what is the difference between your "God," and other gods that are now considered myths? Someday, Muslim, Christian, et al, will be considered mythology as well.

 

[ChrisL]

Why is it so trendy today to attack religion? Historically communist regimes and ideologues such as Karl Marx were the biggest adversaries to religion, because they wanted people to have nothing to trust in other than the state. Coincidentally most atheists today are also progressives who look to "science" and government to offer them meaning.

I fear the popularity of attacking religion is being primarily influenced by cultural Marxism and progressivism, and just like the Soviet Union, the end result won't be pretty.

It is mostly because Religious folks have represented themselves particularly badly. For instance, some are even crazy enough to compare transgenderism to nazi war crimes (even though of course the nazis put the non cis-gendered into death camps).

View attachment 76027

IMO, believing in a man in the sky is just as ridiculous as believing a man is really a woman.

 

[JoeB131]

I want everyone to know that Joe is NOT a sock puppet I use to prove all my claims about lefties.

Nobody believes you can write at my level.

Your reading comprehension seems limited as well.

 

[Divine Wind]

In case you haven't noticed almost every religion claims to possess exclusive rights to the distribution of the ultimate truth about life on earth.

Why is it that whenever anyone questions such claims or points out contradictions while seeking proof that would confirm the truths that YOU all claim to have hold of, religious people always accuse them of hatred or attacking religion instead of answering the questions?

Not true. Most simply offer a path to God. A few are fanatical about it. Do you believe radical Islam really represents the beliefs of the world's 1.6 Billion Muslims?

No, I don't think that radical Islam represents the beliefs of all Muslims but radical elements of all religions always usurp positions of authority over all believers of whatever religion whether through deception or force..

I think its naive if not outright deceptive to say that religion merely offers a path to God. In almost every place where one religion or another dominates the area it is extremely coercive, oppressive, tyrannical and actively involved in obsessively persecuting all opposition by influencing laws and customs that favor believers and punish unbelievers through positions in state and local government that they usurp by making false claims to moral authority.

Well, a person who uses "always" when attacking others seems pretty naive to me since human beings have a common trait of general predictability, but individual variability.

Yes, assholes can take over any group be it the Southern Baptists or American Atheists. The maxim "power corrupts" is often true, but not "always".

 

[hobelim]

In case you haven't noticed almost every religion claims to possess exclusive rights to the distribution of the ultimate truth about life on earth.

Why is it that whenever anyone questions such claims or points out contradictions while seeking proof that would confirm the truths that YOU all claim to have hold of, religious people always accuse them of hatred or attacking religion instead of answering the questions?

Not true. Most simply offer a path to God. A few are fanatical about it. Do you believe radical Islam really represents the beliefs of the world's 1.6 Billion Muslims?

No, I don't think that radical Islam represents the beliefs of all Muslims but radical elements of all religions always usurp positions of authority over all believers of whatever religion whether through deception or force..

I think its naive if not outright deceptive to say that religion merely offers a path to God. In almost every place where one religion or another dominates the area it is extremely coercive, oppressive, tyrannical and actively involved in obsessively persecuting all opposition by influencing laws and customs that favor believers and punish unbelievers through positions in state and local government that they usurp by making false claims to moral authority.

Well, a person who uses "always" when attacking others seems pretty naive to me since human beings have a common trait of general predictability, but individual variability.

Yes, assholes can take over any group be it the Southern Baptists or American Atheists. The maxim "power corrupts" is often true, but not "always".

I did not say always about anything except that radical elements always aspire to positions of power. When is it not the case?

What then?

 

[ChrisL]

In case you haven't noticed almost every religion claims to possess exclusive rights to the distribution of the ultimate truth about life on earth.

Why is it that whenever anyone questions such claims or points out contradictions while seeking proof that would confirm the truths that YOU all claim to have hold of, religious people always accuse them of hatred or attacking religion instead of answering the questions?

Not true. Most simply offer a path to God. A few are fanatical about it. Do you believe radical Islam really represents the beliefs of the world's 1.6 Billion Muslims?

No, I don't think that radical Islam represents the beliefs of all Muslims but radical elements of all religions always usurp positions of authority over all believers of whatever religion whether through deception or force..

I think its naive if not outright deceptive to say that religion merely offers a path to God. In almost every place where one religion or another dominates the area it is extremely coercive, oppressive, tyrannical and actively involved in obsessively persecuting all opposition by influencing laws and customs that favor believers and punish unbelievers through positions in state and local government that they usurp by making false claims to moral authority.

Well, a person who uses "always" when attacking others seems pretty naive to me since human beings have a common trait of general predictability, but individual variability.

Yes, assholes can take over any group be it the Southern Baptists or American Atheists. The maxim "power corrupts" is often true, but not "always".

That's how it has ALWAYS been with religions because that is what it's all about. Only the sheeples follow books that were written thousands of years ago.

 

[Divine Wind]

Martin Luther was a proponent of religion. He deplored the corruption of the church. Two different things.

First, can we agree that there is a difference between seeking a closer connection to God and dogmatic religions?

Second, while you are correct, so am I: Martin Luther attacked the Catholic religion. Wars were fought over the differences.

Religion is a tool; a means to bring one closer to God. A major problem within many religions is some believe the religion is a goal by itself and not simply the tool to the real goal: a greater understanding of God and our own existence.

And what is the difference between your "God," and other gods that are now considered myths? Someday, Muslim, Christian, et al, will be considered mythology as well.

Someday? Maybe, but the fact remains this Universe popped into existence and no one knows why. If research indicated that ours is an oscillating universe of expansion, collapse, expansion, then there'd be more reason to think there is nothing outside, but a one-shot universe begs the question of origin. FWIW, no, it's likely not a old white man with a beard sitting on a golden throne either.

 

[ChrisL]

Martin Luther was a proponent of religion. He deplored the corruption of the church. Two different things.

First, can we agree that there is a difference between seeking a closer connection to God and dogmatic religions?

Second, while you are correct, so am I: Martin Luther attacked the Catholic religion. Wars were fought over the differences.

Religion is a tool; a means to bring one closer to God. A major problem within many religions is some believe the religion is a goal by itself and not simply the tool to the real goal: a greater understanding of God and our own existence.

And what is the difference between your "God," and other gods that are now considered myths? Someday, Muslim, Christian, et al, will be considered mythology as well.

Someday? Maybe, but the fact remains this Universe popped into existence and no one knows why. If research indicated that ours is an oscillating universe of expansion, collapse, expansion, then there'd be more reason to think there is nothing outside, but a one-shot universe begs the question of origin. FWIW, no, it's likely not a old white man with a beard sitting on a golden throne either.

It didn't just "pop" into existence. It took many thousands of years and just the right conditions. Just like sometimes you can throw a seed on the ground and it will take. Sometimes it won't. Just so happens, the conditions on earth were "ripe" for evolution to take place. There are just too many things that contradict religious beliefs and/or gods.

 

[IsaacNewton]

300,000 churches in the US. Oh yes, the persecuted minority.

 

[Divine Wind]

In case you haven't noticed almost every religion claims to possess exclusive rights to the distribution of the ultimate truth about life on earth.

Why is it that whenever anyone questions such claims or points out contradictions while seeking proof that would confirm the truths that YOU all claim to have hold of, religious people always accuse them of hatred or attacking religion instead of answering the questions?

Not true. Most simply offer a path to God. A few are fanatical about it. Do you believe radical Islam really represents the beliefs of the world's 1.6 Billion Muslims?

No, I don't think that radical Islam represents the beliefs of all Muslims but radical elements of all religions always usurp positions of authority over all believers of whatever religion whether through deception or force..

I think its naive if not outright deceptive to say that religion merely offers a path to God. In almost every place where one religion or another dominates the area it is extremely coercive, oppressive, tyrannical and actively involved in obsessively persecuting all opposition by influencing laws and customs that favor believers and punish unbelievers through positions in state and local government that they usurp by making false claims to moral authority.

Well, a person who uses "always" when attacking others seems pretty naive to me since human beings have a common trait of general predictability, but individual variability.

Yes, assholes can take over any group be it the Southern Baptists or American Atheists. The maxim "power corrupts" is often true, but not "always".

That's how it has ALWAYS been with religions because that is what it's all about. Only the sheeples follow books that were written thousands of years ago.

Disagreed, but you are free to believe as you wish. If you want to believe you are simply a meat computer driven by biochemical impulses and the only purpose to your existence is to eat, sleep and procreate, that's completely your choice.

I used to be an atheist, but had a NDE at when I was in high school. Despite experiments with "altered states of consciousness" in college, being knocked out and anesthetized over the past 40+ years since then, I've never replicated the experience. It wasn't a dream and it wasn't a hallucination. Since then I've studied the various philosophical views of a few thousand years of humanity. There is no certainty one way or another which is why it boils down to one's own beliefs.

 

[ChrisL]

There are bacteria on Mars.

In case you haven't noticed almost every religion claims to possess exclusive rights to the distribution of the ultimate truth about life on earth.

Why is it that whenever anyone questions such claims or points out contradictions while seeking proof that would confirm the truths that YOU all claim to have hold of, religious people always accuse them of hatred or attacking religion instead of answering the questions?

Not true. Most simply offer a path to God. A few are fanatical about it. Do you believe radical Islam really represents the beliefs of the world's 1.6 Billion Muslims?

No, I don't think that radical Islam represents the beliefs of all Muslims but radical elements of all religions always usurp positions of authority over all believers of whatever religion whether through deception or force..

I think its naive if not outright deceptive to say that religion merely offers a path to God. In almost every place where one religion or another dominates the area it is extremely coercive, oppressive, tyrannical and actively involved in obsessively persecuting all opposition by influencing laws and customs that favor believers and punish unbelievers through positions in state and local government that they usurp by making false claims to moral authority.

Well, a person who uses "always" when attacking others seems pretty naive to me since human beings have a common trait of general predictability, but individual variability.

Yes, assholes can take over any group be it the Southern Baptists or American Atheists. The maxim "power corrupts" is often true, but not "always".

That's how it has ALWAYS been with religions because that is what it's all about. Only the sheeples follow books that were written thousands of years ago.

Disagreed, but you are free to believe as you wish. If you want to believe you are simply a meat computer driven by biochemical impulses and the only purpose to your existence is to eat, sleep and procreate, that's completely your choice.

I used to be an atheist, but had a NDE at when I was in high school. Despite experiments with "altered states of consciousness" in college, being knocked out and anesthetized over the past 40+ years since then, I've never replicated the experience. It wasn't a dream and it wasn't a hallucination. Since then I've studied the various philosophical views of a few thousand years of humanity. There is no certainty one way or another which is why it boils down to one's own beliefs.

Mmmm, yeah okay.

 

[Divine Wind]

Martin Luther was a proponent of religion. He deplored the corruption of the church. Two different things.

First, can we agree that there is a difference between seeking a closer connection to God and dogmatic religions?

Second, while you are correct, so am I: Martin Luther attacked the Catholic religion. Wars were fought over the differences.

Religion is a tool; a means to bring one closer to God. A major problem within many religions is some believe the religion is a goal by itself and not simply the tool to the real goal: a greater understanding of God and our own existence.

And what is the difference between your "God," and other gods that are now considered myths? Someday, Muslim, Christian, et al, will be considered mythology as well.

Someday? Maybe, but the fact remains this Universe popped into existence and no one knows why. If research indicated that ours is an oscillating universe of expansion, collapse, expansion, then there'd be more reason to think there is nothing outside, but a one-shot universe begs the question of origin. FWIW, no, it's likely not a old white man with a beard sitting on a golden throne either.

It didn't just "pop" into existence. It took many thousands of years and just the right conditions. Just like sometimes you can throw a seed on the ground and it will take. Sometimes it won't. Just so happens, the conditions on earth were "ripe" for evolution to take place. There are just too many things that contradict religious beliefs and/or gods.

Who threw the seed? This is more than just "the first mover" theory. The Universe had a definite beginning where all Space-Time began and, so far, all the evidence indicates it will expand into "the Big Chill" of maximum entropy.

 

[ChrisL]

There is no evidence that there is currently life on Mars. Some scientists think that they have found evidence that there WAS life on Mars at some time in the past. The evidence that they found is fossilized bacteria (3.6 billion year old dead bacteria) on a meteor from Mars that struck Antarctica 13,000 years ago. We know the meteor is from Mars because it contains traces of the Martian atmosphere. The scientists found evidence of small round objects that look like bacteria on Earth, plus organic molecules and minerals that they think were made by the bacteria. There is also evidence that there may have been water on Mars a long time ago. Most scientists believe that water is necessary for life. The pictures of Mars relayed to Earth by the Mars Observer show signs of dried up lake beds, past floods and old river channels. Scientists do not know for sure, however, if there really was water on Mars in the past. There is no water on the surface of Mars right now.