They Hate God: The Real Root of Atheist's Anti-Christmas Rage

[maine04619]

You make a left-field statement about how I live my life with no actual knowledge. I go to church twice per year. Everyone who believes in God isn't some weirdo religious fanatic. I've lived my life to its fullest every day. There is no robot-like subservice. At least nothing more than you. Why do you follow the commandments handed down to Moses? Are you aware you do this every day of your life. You teach it to your kids as well.

The scale of ones belief is not the point. You either buy the cow or you do not. If you believe in a god then you do the dedication that you practice that faith is not relevant.

I do not follow the ten commandments. Of course you do know that there are many versions of them depending on the faith. The jews who WROTE the original scriptures are a bit different then most of the books now.

I will go with King James version

1 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. I have no god at all.
2 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. I make what I want.
3 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain Do this one all the time to prove lightning will not strike me.
4 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Nope As I do not worship any god I have better things to do..
5 Honour thy father and thy mother Respect them sure. How does one honor ones parents? Would that not violate #1 i some way?
6 Thou shalt not kill. Well this one is stupid. I have killed allot. I hunt for food. Someone comes after my family I will kill them if necessary.
7 Thou shalt not commit adultery. Well I would not I love my wife. That said Many do.
8 Thou shalt not steal. Agreed for the most part.
9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. I have no neighbors
10 Thou shalt not covet. Bull I covet lots of things it is what gives humans the drive to succeed and to do more.

 

[BC1]

How can I prove I love my kids. Ask them. How can you prove god loves you?

If you are going to quote what the bible says please cite chapter and verse as I do..

Again the 10 commandants are cited all the time but in fact the first few are in fact just do as I say or else. The last few are are moral rules that where around LONG before moses. In Fact Chinese socicity had laws covering all of the non you god related ones several thousand years prior to the 10 commandments. Morality can be had without believing in a god.

Asking them proves nothing. they may believe you do but no human emotion is provable. they could be the mailman's kids and not even know it. you could be faking it for all they know. How do I know? I don't profess to know God loves me. As far as quoting the bible I don't do it. EVER! that would make me one of "them" wouldn't it.

 

[BC1]

The scale of ones belief is not the point. You either buy the cow or you do not. If you believe in a god then you do the dedication that you practice that faith is not relevant.

I do not follow the ten commandments. Of course you do know that there are many versions of them depending on the faith. The jews who WROTE the original scriptures are a bit different then most of the books now.

I will go with King James version

1 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. I have no god at all.
2 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. I make what I want.
3 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain Do this one all the time to prove lightning will not strike me.
4 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Nope As I do not worship any god I have better things to do..
5 Honour thy father and thy mother Respect them sure. How does one honor ones parents? Would that not violate #1 i some way?
6 Thou shalt not kill. Well this one is stupid. I have killed allot. I hunt for food. Someone comes after my family I will kill them if necessary.
7 Thou shalt not commit adultery. Well I would not I love my wife. That said Many do.
8 Thou shalt not steal. Agreed for the most part.
9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. I have no neighbors
10 Thou shalt not covet. Bull I covet lots of things it is what gives humans the drive to succeed and to do more.

4 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. (BLUE LAWS - ALOCOHOL, GAMBLING, WORK, ETC.)
6 Thou shalt not kill. Actually its "murder" not kill. (PENAL LAW - HOMICIDE)
7 Thou shalt not commit adultery. (PENAL LAW - ADULTERY)
8 Thou shalt not steal. (PENAL LAW - ROBBERY, BURGLARY)
9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Your neighbor is any other human being. (PENAL LAW - PURJURY, OFFERING A FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING)
10 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors things (PENAL LAW - THEFT)
.
All of these things exist in penal/civil law which was derived from common law which was derived from religion. Period. Historical fact. As far as your values, they come from "gut value programming." Your value system (or those without one) is programmed (or not) by your experiences, teachers, parents, etc. during early life. That value system determines our worldview, religious leanings and influences how we feel about what is normal and abnormal. That value system embraces the ideals found in the Bible, created thousands of years ago to help mankind survive himself. The ideals were around for thousands of years and were finally put in a book some 1600 or so years ago. So you embrace the ideals, you just won't credit the book, is that correct?
.
Other comments like lightening striking you? Strange. If lightening doesn't strike you then there's no religion? Is that the proof you said you have? I'm not slamming you, i'm just trying to understand how people follow religious principles yet don't embrace religion.

 

[kwimby]

All of these things exist in penal/civil law which was derived from common law which was derived from religion. Period.

So, are you saying that before organized religion existed people did not intuitively know murder was wrong? Maybe they weren't smart enough to know that killing each other was generally speaking, a bad idea? Until religion came along to guide them properly?

Sounds like that is what you are saying. All those concepts came from religion? Period?

 

[tcox4freedom]

Why because I enjoy freedom and the ability to speak the truth. Truth backed by facts and documented history. Believers say they back up their faith with a book I can easily prove ( and have ) to be made up of stories wrote by man with the primary intention of maintaining control over the masses.

I know exactly what happens when I die life ends game over.

In the bible god wiped out the majority of people on the earth for not having faith and being evil saving but one family and animals on a boat ( Genesis 6:19-20 - "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.) this is mathematically impossible giving the measurements in the bible even if you use the measurements in the Hebrew version before it was miss translated ( never corrected though ) even 50 times the size would not be close to large enough in yet today with all the evil and the openly anti god felling of so many he does nothing?

My question is as always how much reality and facts need to be seen to overcome faith and why even in the face of such proof do so many need faith. Easy enough to answer death. Death is the key to all religion. It boils down to being able to accept this is you're life live it to it's fullest or spend that life worrying and fearing what will come when you die here thus giving you false hope that life is more.

Here's a link that I'd like you to go to and then come back and address some the the questions it asks and give us your rebuttal of the material it covers.

15 questions


I'll even make it easier- Here's a link to the first question. Why don't you go and read over the data and come back and discuss.

http://creation.com/origin-of-life


-

 

[dad45acp]

Asking them proves nothing. they may believe you do but no human emotion is provable.

Are. You. Frickin. Serious. Sweet jesus, psych 101 would teach you otherwise. You're kinda trying to make a point buuuuut the intellectual level of your point is free-falling.

 

[nosreme]

Here's a link that I'd like you to go to and then come back and address some the the questions it asks and give us your rebuttal of the material it covers.

15 questions
I'll even make it easier- Here's a link to the first question. Why don't you go and read over the data and come back and discuss.
Origin of life-

15 Questions for Evolutionists from Creation.com - Think Atheist

Answering the 15 Unanswerable Questions for Evolutionists | TimParkinson.net

Link Removed

There are several more from legitimate scientists (you know, the kind who employ the scientific method to take them wherever it does rather than use a pseudo-scientific method to validate preconceived notions). BTW, there are lots of questions to which there are not and may never be definitive, conclusive answers. That's not proof of god. Maybe, the more I think about it, that's pretty strong (philosophical, not scientific) proof that there is no god. A real, omnipotent god who demands continual worship and adulation upon pain of eternal hellfire, damnation, searing pain, etc, etc, for not getting it would make these fundamental things clear.

 

[BC1]

Are. You. Frickin. Serious. Sweet jesus, psych 101 would teach you otherwise. You're kinda trying to make a point buuuuut the intellectual level of your point is free-falling.

No, what I'm telling you is that no emotion can be quantitatively measured and proven. Not in accordance with the standards required by modern science. No science, no mathematical formulas or models exist to prove love. There are people who provide for their kids and give them a great upbringing but don't love them. Perhaps they do it out of a sense of obligation. While their actions are congruent with love it does not prove love. This was even decided in the courts long ago. The intellectual point is spot-on. Psych 101 doesn't touch this subject. No psych class I ever took embraced this. I have an M.S. from Columbia University. I took lot's of psych in those years. It didn't touch on this because we're not talking about psychology... closer to sociology and philosophy. One must be able to prove love using the same science they would use to prove or disprove God's existence. Can you give me a tangible, definitive, scientifically accepted method of proving love? No.

 

[nosreme]

Back to Oldgrunt's original post, here's Answers in Genesis' take on the subject: The Attack on Christmas - Answers in Genesis . I'm laughing too hard to comment on it.

 

[BC1]

So, are you saying that before organized religion existed people did not intuitively know murder was wrong? Maybe they weren't smart enough to know that killing each other was generally speaking, a bad idea? Until religion came along to guide them properly?

Sounds like that is what you are saying. All those concepts came from religion? Period?

No, I think it was in the reverse order. Survival of the species required rules. Before organized religion existed societal clans created rules to ensure the clan would procreate. They knew this would not be possible if members of a clan stole from each other, killed each other or did each other wrong. So the rules were set down way before organized religion. banishment and death were the sentences. Religion didn't formulate such rules but rather embraced them in organized form. So much of what is in the Bible expounds on these principals, finally setting it down in writing. The Bible should not be thought of as written by some white-haired God, but rather a collection of stories. We now know through archeology that many of the stories were historically accurate. We know the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt. We know the ancient cities existed. We know that biblical characters such as David, Saul, Jacob, Esther, Leah, Rebecca, Sarah, Abraham, Pontius pilot, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the apostles, Barabbas and most others in both the new and old testaments actually lived. We know that Jesus' actions among his followers and the response from the Jewish elders were real. We know crucifixion and Roman rule were real. The historical record is not in question. So we have a book written to tell the history as handed down for thousands of years. Within that book comes rules for living, procreation, medicine, accounting and fair dealing. And we still follow those rules today, whether or not we believe in religion. The Bible is not meant to be taken literally but rather interpretively. It means difference things to different people. For some, like me, it's a guide to good living. For others it's the hand of God, fire and brimstone.
.
BTW... Good debate.

 

[dad45acp]

No, what I'm telling you is that no emotion can be quantitatively measured and proven. Not in accordance with the standards required by modern science. No science, no mathematical formulas or models exist to prove love. There are people who provide for their kids and give them a great upbringing but don't love them. Perhaps they do it out of a sense of obligation. While their actions are congruent with love it does not prove love. This was even decided in the courts long ago. The intellectual point is spot-on. Psych 101 doesn't touch this subject. No psych class I ever took embraced this. I have an M.S. from Columbia University. I took lot's of psych in those years. It didn't touch on this because we're not talking about psychology... closer to sociology and philosophy. One must be able to prove love using the same science they would use to prove or disprove God's existence. Can you give me a tangible, definitive, scientifically accepted method of proving love? No.

Proven through neuroscience...no? And with biological markers?

Sent from my hand-held mind distractor

 

[BC1]

Proven through neuroscience...no? And with biological markers?

Sent from my hand-held mind distractor

Good pick. It's pretty close to proving it. The emotion "love" seems to produce some changes in brain function. These include stimulation in the VTA, the prefrontal cortex (reduced impulse control), in men there are changes in the visual cortex and in women changes in the hippocampus. The brain releases dopamine and changes to serotonin sensitivity also seen. So it appears the reaction is that we get excited, happy and throw caution to the wind.
.
Some of these same changes occur when we eat chocolate (perhaps we love it) or take certain drugs (meth, crack, nicotine, cocaine, alcohol). Perhaps people also love the drugs. Persons suffering depression may see greater re-uptake of serotonin, thus an SSRI medication such as Zoloft keeps our brain from re-absorbing the serotonin. The same neurochemical changes are found in obsession. Thus the stalker's brain lights-up similarly to someone in love or in lust. There's also no real difference between love and lust in terms of brain chemistry. Persons presenting with certain brain disorders (Parkinson's disease and Parkinsonian syndrome) have reduced dopamine levels, yet they seem to experience the emotion just as fully as healthy people. These patients may take artificial dopamine (Carbidopa/Levodopa) and although the levels are measurably better the emotion isn't stronger than without the meds.
.
So the science is getting better but hasn't yet isolated love emotions from other things that trigger a similar "love" response such as drugs, alcohol, food, etc. I believe this will eventually be found and quantified. Good pick.

 

[XD40scinNC]

No, it cannot. There is a huge atheist community waging war on anything religious. That's already a fact.

You are confusing freedom with an attack on religion. How would you react to forced Muslim prayers in schools, or some of the restrictions of their religion imposed on you as a matter of civil law?

No different than an atheist opposing the restrictions of your religion imposed on anyone as a matter of civil law.

Freedom from religion is not about god, but about freedom. Freedom not to have to be regulated by any religion. You sure as hell would oppose Muslim law, yet get your boxers in a bunch when someone rejects your religious restrictions.

 

[jhodge83]

here's an article that takes into account the changing demographics in the country as the fall for xmas...

Link Removed

 

[BC1]

You are confusing freedom with an attack on religion. How would you react to forced Muslim prayers in schools, or some of the restrictions of their religion imposed on you as a matter of civil law?

No different than an atheist opposing the restrictions of your religion imposed on anyone as a matter of civil law.

Freedom from religion is not about god, but about freedom. Freedom not to have to be regulated by any religion. You sure as hell would oppose Muslim law, yet get your boxers in a bunch when someone rejects your religious restrictions.

But no one is forcing kids to pray in school. And Sharia law hasn't found its way into mainstream government in America. I don't want any school forcing any religion on anyone. Don't have a problem with holiday display in school, regardless of which religion they are.

 

[XD40scinNC]

But no one is forcing kids to pray in school. And Sharia law hasn't found its way into mainstream government in America. I don't want any school forcing any religion on anyone. Don't have a problem with holiday display in school, regardless of which religion they are.

But christian based laws are part of our local, state, and federal laws, covering everything from marriage, sex, birth control, abortion, to what you can and cannot buy or do on 'the sabbath'.

True, not as extreme as Sharia law, but there are many fundamentalist christians that would like to impose their christian version. NC just added one about marriage to the state constitution this year. One does not think of 2013 as the dark ages, but many are still living with this mindset.

 

[dad45acp]

Good pick. It's pretty close to proving it. The emotion "love" seems to produce some changes in brain function. These include stimulation in the VTA, the prefrontal cortex (reduced impulse control), in men there are changes in the visual cortex and in women changes in the hippocampus. The brain releases dopamine and changes to serotonin sensitivity also seen. So it appears the reaction is that we get excited, happy and throw caution to the wind.
.
Some of these same changes occur when we eat chocolate (perhaps we love it) or take certain drugs (meth, crack, nicotine, cocaine, alcohol). Perhaps people also love the drugs. Persons suffering depression may see greater re-uptake of serotonin, thus an SSRI medication such as Zoloft keeps our brain from re-absorbing the serotonin. The same neurochemical changes are found in obsession. Thus the stalker's brain lights-up similarly to someone in love or in lust. There's also no real difference between love and lust in terms of brain chemistry. Persons presenting with certain brain disorders (Parkinson's disease and Parkinsonian syndrome) have reduced dopamine levels, yet they seem to experience the emotion just as fully as healthy people. These patients may take artificial dopamine (Carbidopa/Levodopa) and although the levels are measurably better the emotion isn't stronger than without the meds.
.
So the science is getting better but hasn't yet isolated love emotions from other things that trigger a similar "love" response such as drugs, alcohol, food, etc. I believe this will eventually be found and quantified. Good pick.

I have not studied love singularly but through articles through the APA website and even wikipedia, studies have proven biological and neuroscientific markers to the love emotion as attributed to those individuals being studied and invoking those such emotions. But yes, I get the fact that chocolate or coffee or rx/illicit drugs also use the same neurotransmitters as love emotion. But from a biological standpoint and evolutionary standpoint, love can be many things. Impersonal, interpersonal, narcissistic and so on that makes humans a bit more unique and have in turn, theorized the triangular theory of love. Humans are complicated in may ways...including ways to love. Good talk. I'm on holiday break so I can't stress my brain like this......

 

[whodat2710]

Freedom from religion is not about god, but about freedom. Freedom not to have to be regulated by any religion. You sure as hell would oppose Muslim law, yet get your boxers in a bunch when someone rejects your religious restrictions.

The Constitution demands a freedom OF rather than a freedom FROM religion. My problem with the atheist religion (yeah, I said atheist religion) is that the ones you see protesting prayer in school or a nativity scene are actually going against the Constitution. If the government was to MANDATE that there will be a prayer in school, that is bad because it imposes one belief on everyone. If students choose to pray in school, and this is not fomented by the establishment, it is a freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.
-
Attempting to have "in God We Trust" removed from currency, or removing "One Nation Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance is also an attempt to impose "non-belief" on others. It was good enough for over 200 years, but for some reason I am supposed to care if it offends you now. You can track the demise of our society with the rise of atheism and other anti Christian views.

 

[nosreme]

...If students choose to pray in school, and this is not fomented by the establishment, it is a freedom guaranteed by the Constitution...

This is the one correct statement in the above post. But it can be extended: Kids have a constitutional right to wear "jesus" (or other religious) t-shirts; that doing so might "offend" others is a non-starter (there's no constitutional right to not be offended). Some public school teachers and administrators are willfully ignorant of the constitutional right of religious expression and need to understand that, but they never will. The only remedy will continue to be adverse publicity and lawsuits. At the same time, the religious right and Fox News (oh yeah, I almost forgot--the latter is an arm of the former) need to stop disingenuously extrapolating from isolated idiotic actions of individual teachers and school administrators into the self-serving and disingenuous assertion that those are part of an ongoing, insidious "war on religion."

 

[jhodge83]

The Constitution demands a freedom OF rather than a freedom FROM religion. My problem with the atheist religion (yeah, I said atheist religion) is that the ones you see protesting prayer in school or a nativity scene are actually going against the Constitution. If the government was to MANDATE that there will be a prayer in school, that is bad because it imposes one belief on everyone. If students choose to pray in school, and this is not fomented by the establishment, it is a freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.
-
Attempting to have "in God We Trust" removed from currency, or removing "One Nation Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance is also an attempt to impose "non-belief" on others. It was good enough for over 200 years, but for some reason I am supposed to care if it offends you now. You can track the demise of our society with the rise of atheism and other anti Christian views.

"under god" wasnt added to the pledge until 1942 (originally written in 1892 did not have it) and "in god we trust" was sproatic from the 1800's until 1938 (on coins) and 1956 on bills (and that was only because of the hatred of Soviets). i dont know where you're getting this over 200 years stuff...