Do people hate the actual belief in God, or just the religious organizations?

[I_am_not_mafia]

Hating a belief in God is like hating tape worm infections. Both are infectious forms of parasitism but sooner or later you have to accept that they both exist. All you can do is try to limit the infection.

Religious institutions on the other hand are like any other power mongering organisating and can be fought against.

[Edwardo Piet]

I have issue with dangerous irrationality.

[abaris]

By anyone. It's not uncommon for atheists to say [i]I don't believe in God, but even if I did, I wouldn't worship him.

Is it? Sometimes it happens. Personally I find these to be stupid comments. Just like the entire threads going on and on over god's supposed nature. You may have a point there as far as people are concerned talking about god as if he were real. You won't have much of a point with me, since the only things I added to these discussions was to disagree with the whole point being made.

I for one care as much about god's judgment as I care about Zeus' wrath. Not at all.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

or both?

i see people say "religion ruins everything" so that would point to the organizations and scriptures

i also see people say "youre dumb if you believe in god"

so, what do people hate? or at least, what do people have the most issue with?

My main concern is the following: how do theists, or practitioners of religion for that matter, separate their personal truths from the truth of their faith? Do they ultimately project their truth onto their faith? In addition, can they honestly say that what they believe is the truth of their deity and not the subjective truths of other people, which have been passed down to them and reinforced through various means of socialization and conditioning?

[bennyboy]

Yes and yes.

[goombah111]

My main concern is the following: how do theists, or practitioners of religion for that matter, separate their personal truths from the truth of their faith? Do they ultimately project their truth onto their faith? In addition, can they honestly say that what they believe is the truth of their deity and not the subjective truths of other people, which have been passed down to them and reinforced through various means of socialization and conditioning?

so...blind faith?

there are very few reasons to believe objectively.

There's a 9/11 thread around here somewhere. You go and read it first, and if after that you still think you could make salient points replete with "supporting evidence", you put it in there.

Belief in 9/11 being an inside job is so silly that it really is only out done by, well, religious faith.

again, there is a lot of evidence to support it. so its not silly. it may be wrong, but its not ridiculous. 
im not sure why it carries such a stigma. even if only stupid people believed it, that would make it stupid, not crazy.
again, i dont want to discuss it. youre the one who suggested that if i didnt then i would look crazy or something like that.
"if youre gonna say it wasnt muslims and dont even bother supporting it then your gonna look like a nutjob"
paraphrasing

im not going to another thread to support it. theres a thread for everything 10 times over, its not like we go back and revive an old thread everytime a repeat question is asked.

you have to review the current evidence before u can make claims that its crazy.

or you can take it on faith that its crazy and not review the current evidence.

up to you.

[Thumpalumpacus]

again, there is a lot of evidence to support it.

Get started presenting it in that thread, then. The "evidence" I've seen is actually a bunch of supposition strung together with requirements that simply won't withstand scrutiny. Bldg 7 was demolished? Great. How and when did they wire it such that not a single person noticed it? etc etc.

so its not silly. it may be wrong, but its not ridiculous. 

No, it is silly. It is ridiculous.

im not sure why it carries such a stigma. even if only stupid people believed it, that would make it stupid, not crazy.
again, i dont want to discuss it. youre the one who suggested that if i didnt then i would look crazy or something like that.
"if youre gonna say it wasnt muslims and dont even bother supporting it then your gonna look like a nutjob"
paraphrasing

Whoa, whoa, whoa, let's slow down here a little, Kemosabe. You seem to have forgotten that this topic opened with you ridiculing someone for thinking that 9/11 was committed by Muslims. Now you want to beat your breast because I'm pointing out that you look like a nutbag when you posit a conspiracy but refuse to give evidence for it?

im not going to another thread to support it. theres a thread for everything 10 times over, its not like we go back and revive an old thread everytime a repeat question is asked.

I can't say I blame you. I wouldn't want to defend a baseless position either.

you have to review the current evidence before u can make claims that its crazy.

or you can take it on faith that its crazy and not review the current evidence.

up to you.

... or I can ask myself, how could the government wire at least one and perhaps three buildings -- a process which would take weeks if not longer, without a single person of the 70,000+ who work in them noticing? Or I could ask myself, how would Israel benefit from increased Middle East tension? Or .... your assumption that I'm taking my stance on faith is wrong. You see, I've reviewed quite a bit of the "evidence" on which you're basing your points (assuming you're not positing, say, Godzilla and King Kong pulled it off, or something). You tell yourself I haven't so that you can disparage my disagreement as "faith", and feel better about your own favorite narrative. It's okay -- people do that all the time.

But reaching for the most ridiculous "explanation" -- and let's face it, there's no conspiracy theory that explains the events of that day in a cogent manner -- reaching for the most ridiculous explanation is, to use Occam's words, multiplying entities needlessly. I've got better things to do than to chase down and refute every idiotic "theory" John Jackass comes out with.

Not all ideas are equal. Deal with it.

i could easily support my case and could easily counter argue yours.
if you want to get into it, be my guest. ask me anything.

again, i dont want to discuss it.

Boy, that was a quick change of heart on your part.

[goombah111]

Get started presenting it in that thread, then. The "evidence" I've seen is actually a bunch of supposition strung together with requirements that simply won't withstand scrutiny.  Bldg 7 was demolished? Great. How and when did they wire it such that not a single person noticed it? etc etc.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, let's slow down here a little, Kemosabe. You seem to have forgotten that this topic opened with you ridiculing someone for thinking that 9/11 was committed by Muslims. Now you want to beat your breast because I'm pointing out that you look like a nutbag when you posit a conspiracy but refuse to give evidence for it?
I can't say I blame you. I wouldn't want to defend a baseless position either.
... or I can ask myself, how could the government wire at least one and perhaps three buildings -- a process which would take weeks if not longer, without a single person of the 70,000+ who work in them noticing? Or I could ask myself, how would Israel benefit from increased Middle East tension? Or .... your assumption that I'm taking my stance on faith is wrong. You see, I've reviewed quite a bit of the "evidence" on which you're basing your points (assuming you're not positing, say, Godzilla and King Kong pulled it off, or something). You tell yourself I haven't so that you can disparage my disagreement as "faith", and feel better about your own favorite narrative. It's okay -- people do that all the time.

But reaching for the most ridiculous "explanation" -- and let's face it, there's no conspiracy theory that explains the events of that day in a cogent manner -- reaching for the most ridiculous  explanation is, to use Occam's words, multiplying entities needlessly. I've got better things to do than to chase down and refute every idiotic "theory" John Jackass comes out with.

Not all ideas are equal. Deal with it.





Boy, that was a quick change of heart on your part.

i ridiculed no one.

your argument consists only of hypothetical questions

i have 1 small piece for you to debunk. use google, idc.
if you find any reasonable reason to dismiss over 200 peoples eye witness and expert witness testimony...

then i will admit that i am wrong, you are right, and that 9/11 truthers are crazy nutjobs (including the truthers who are families of the victims)

saying 200 people were "mistaken" is more ludicrous than saying aliens were flying those planes.

good luck or give up
here it is, hidden.

---

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH1Xdcssw4A

---

good luck or give up

[Whateverist]

again, there is a lot of evidence to support it.

Get started presenting it in that thread, then. The "evidence" I've seen is actually a bunch of supposition strung together with requirements that simply won't withstand scrutiny.  Bldg 7 was demolished? Great. How and when did they wire it such that not a single person noticed it? etc etc.

I completely agree. Belief in 9-11 being an inside job is cray-cray all the way. Period. Full stop.

so its not silly. it may be wrong, but its not ridiculous. 

No, it is silly. It is ridiculous.

Where god-belief is concerned, it is just belief in a literal, out-there god which deserves to be scoffed at. Faith in the availability of wisdom not arrived at deductively is not nuts (though entirely unreliable). I mean not every dream unlocks the structure of DNA and not every fantasy results in artistic mastery. The role of god belief in our becoming as we are is an interesting discussion topic.

Could something not literally true have played a crucial role in our acquiring our mode of consciousness which to all appearances is unique. If so, is there a way to think about gods in an as-if way (allegorically rather than literally) which could be as useful in the domain of the subjective as science has been within the domain of the objective? I think the answer is either 1) yes or 2) maybe not but perhaps it enhances creativity, happiness and insight into the human condition. I lean toward 2.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Faith in the availability of wisdom not arrived at deductively is not nuts (though entirely unreliable).

I totally agree. Many things aren't necessarily explicable by reason -- personal insight, artistic expression, and so on.