Why do Muslims and Christians hate Atheists?

[Amergain]

Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet

You see, if a person has conversations with ghosts,
they can react two ways :

1) Panic
2) Be philosophical

1 - typically think they are going crazy
2 - eventually have to accept the phenomenon as real if the experience effects them in a clearly positive way

Now not all ghosts are nice.
so the reactions to the experience are going to vary from situation to situation

the first dozen or so ghosts i talked to had nothing positive to offer, so i remained philosophical, then after positive experiences, i went as far as to do whole degrees in psychology, and submitted myself and all my experiences for evaluation by professional psychologists.

You, a Clinical Psychologist...crikey!

BTW, I do not believe in ghosts but I believe in goblins (known in Ireland as Fir Bolgs). They live in earthen mounds. I have never seen a Goblin, but I have seen the mounds of earth under which they live. However, I have talked to the Leprechauns and they have seen goblins. They say the goblins are evil but repelled Leprechaun magic from the High God Dagda and Mother Goddess Brigit.

I grew up within two Km of Loch Ness. I never saw Nessie but many lads, staggering from the uisage-beatha (potin) have seen her. Fergus saw Nessie, and Nessie attacked and bit off his wool cap. I believe him because Fergus always loved that cap, and he does not wear it anymore. He explained that you could only see the Leprechauns, Goblins, and Nessie if you consume 3 litres of Potin or 20 pints of Guinness.

I am afraid that I cannot drink that much because I get sick after one litre. Therefore, I missed out. I think I will fly down to Amsterdam and get some marijuana, and I might see Nessie in the canals or see Trolls under the canal bridges.

Amergain

[Glennn]

When I was younger, I wasn’t interested in such things as astral travel, astral bodies, energy bodies, astral planes, dreamscapes, etc. It was not that I doubted the possibility of the reality of such things. It was just that, if I couldn’t come to a logical understanding of something by the end of the afternoon, I’d lose interest and wouldn‘t pursue it any further. Predictably, when it came to the subject of extra-dimensional, energetic configurations of an astral nature, I quickly lost interest and didn‘t pursue it. And besides, making sense of the behind-the-scenes workings of this 3rd-dimensional reality was hard enough without the added burden of studying and mapping the “ins and outs” of extra-vibratory realms like the 4th and 5th dimensions and beyond.

Conversely, I willingly absorbed the local deity of my nation/tribe without subjecting it to the same degree of critical analysis as I applied to all things new-age-ish. Decades later, I still haven’t resolved the issue of extra-dimensional realities in my mind; that is, I still can’t put it all into a context that my logical brain can measure as physically real and psychologically reasonable.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge the fact that aspects of any extra-dimensional reality are not likely to translate into 3-dimensional reality very well, and vice versa. Further, I also understand that the reason for my inability to perceive and interpret both ethereal communications and the “communicators” of those communications is the same as the reason for my inability to know what’s happening on channel 5 while I’m watching channel twelve--I don’t have split-screen technology. However, I’ve come to understand that there are those who do have this . . . technology.

My past opinion concerning these things was obviously influenced by an upbringing which included being subliminally (and liminally as well) guided to consider unexplained phenomena as nothing more than some residual energetic effects of this primary reality. Anything appearing outside of, or separate from, my primary reality simply didn’t exist--I didn't really see it. Because of that upbringing, I have to admit that there is a 93% chance that I am 42% biased toward my own vibrationally-unique frequency pattern, believing it to be the most real, the most legitimate, and the most central of all.

[gek12]

Having no belief causes unreason for living. If we are just a continuos scientific cycle of death then the reason for living becomes more unknown than ever. I don't hate I pity that the non-believers can't find themselves to believe in something beyond science.

[Glennn]

Gek,

You make the mistake of "believing" that everyone shares your inability to find meaning and purpose in life without trying to please other beings with bargain-based praise and worship.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by gek12

Having no belief causes unreason for living. If we are just a continuos scientific cycle of death then the reason for living becomes more unknown than ever. I don't hate I pity that the non-believers can't find themselves to believe in something beyond science.

So funny, I had no idea you were that clueless about human life purpose for living. I just answered your 'are we one thread' and told you human purpose for life, AND, I'm a non believer.

Everyone has the same purpose, to experience the 5 senses. Not everyone has those 5 senses but most of us do. This is all the reason I need to live, without it I couldn't experience life. This is something that we all share as well.

What else makes humans equal? Isn't that what religion teaches, equality? And you people are believers, HA, how come your gods haven't revealed a purpose. Oh, in the OT, Psalms, makes mention that human purpose is to experience senses, but I suppose that was overlooked by almost everyone that has ever read Psalms. For example, Psalm 34:8 TASTE AND SEE, there are others but I don't feel like finding them all for you. Haha, my feelings.

[Mister Agenda]

No one can escape choosing for themselves what meaning their life has. Choosing an outside authority to assign that meaning is still one's own choice.

The meaning I have found is to strive to live a full life with integrity and compassion. That's an oversimplification of course, but being mindful of that goal has turned out to give my life all the meaning I need, at least for now.

[Ironlord]

Originally Posted by gek12

Having no belief causes unreason for living. If we are just a continuos scientific cycle of death then the reason for living becomes more unknown than ever. I don't hate I pity that the non-believers can't find themselves to believe in something beyond science.

i have pity for those that have to have a supreme being in oder to live to something in life. so, please do not have pity on this non-believer, because I rely on reality and one's own goals within that reality. not some made up world in the hereafter.

[Ca$hback]

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

No one can escape choosing for themselves what meaning their life has. Choosing an outside authority to assign that meaning is still one's own choice.

If conviction is a matter of choice, that explains why people are predominantly catering to convenience rather than prudence. They don't believe what they say they do because their so-called conviction caters to what they want rather than respect for data, patterns and impressions.

I want to believe in heaven, I want to believe the almighty's got my back and I want to believe that it's as simple as good and evil but I can't choose to believe in those things, I'd be lying to myself and humoring the religeous. I don't think it's choice at all. Same with the meaning of life. The only reason we know we're alive is to die, anything beyond that is speculation. There's what you'd like to be the truth, there's what you actually believe it is and there's the objective premise. Life will "aim" different people different directions and "fate" will be more persistant with some than others. Depending on the life you've lived you may believe you've been given signs (not necessarily by a conscious creator) insinuating where your place in society is and may be convinced to persue a corresponding career. That's what I find conviction generally comes from, what life "shows" you. If you haven't made a choice because you've run out of time, did you choose to be indecisive or did your indecisivensss force a "choice" on you?

[IamJoseph]

I don't hate atheists - even though they are incorrect. An honest atheist involves a deeper focus on the issue than most believers.

There is no scientific alternative to Creationism. Creationism is a scientific premise, based on cause and effect and a finite universe. What scientific premise is atheism based on!?

Creationism is not aligned with Christianity and Islam, but predates them by 2,600 years - these religions have corrupted creationism & monotheism by making it subserviant to their own preferred, localised names - and both are mutually exclusive, contradictive belief systems. It does not need rocket science to negate these beliefs.

Atheists are equally wrong as an evolutionist belief system: evolution is an after the fact sub-process introduced in Genesis - the first depiction of life form groupings, each following their own kind, all subject to data derived from the dual host parent via a chip ['seed']. Atheism says the car manual proves there is no car maker - Genesis ascribes to the reverse as proof.

[IamJoseph]

Originally Posted by Ca$hback

The only reason we know we're alive is to die, anything beyond that is speculation.

More important than death - is to know where we came from. IOW, what is a pre-life state, not to be confused with passing through a birth process or host parents or material quark particles. This answer is found in Genesis, which says nothing happens with ONE - and ONE does not exist in the universe - namely, it takes TWO [a duality] to tango, the minimum number for any act or action. Genesis says a life is derived from a pre-programmed duality, each able to identify and interact with another:

'MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM'

Namely, if a red marble came from a green marble, then the green marble had to contain some red - namely it was a duality to begin with.


The possibility that one came first, randomly, then another in critical allignment to the first - is unscientific. This says that H2 + O = water is not random ratio but an interaction of two entities able to combine as no other can - by a ratio of once against all other interactions in the universe. This evidences why the GU theory is wrong - the search for ONE entity is wrong because no action can occur with ONE. Once, there was no environment, heat, forces, light, elements, contractions - making it unscientific to derive an action.

[Mister Agenda]

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

What scientific premise is atheism based on!?

I DO appreciate that you don't hate us, Joseph.

Atheism is not believing in God(s). It's a condition or state of being, not a claim--at least not a claim about anything other than what the person doesn't believe in. When someone says 'I am a Jew' they are not saying anything about which premises are relevant, the only claim they are making is about themselves. Same thing for atheists.

Atheism is not the converse of Judaism, it is the absence of theism.

[Ca$hback]

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I don't hate atheists - even though they are incorrect. An honest atheist involves a deeper focus on the issue than most believers.

Neither atheism or honesty denotes a critical mind.

There is no scientific alternative to Creationism. Creationism is a scientific premise, based on cause and effect and a finite universe. What scientific premise is atheism based on!?

The physical constant.
What created the creator in order to facilitate creation, the creator? It's the same paradox. If the big bang happened, what medium did it happen inside of?

[Glennn]

Yeah . . . what he said.

[IamJoseph]

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

Atheism is not the converse of Judaism,

Wrong. You are unable to converse Judaism. Try as you may. Know the difference.

it is the absence of theism.

Wrong. You do NOT have anything in the bag is more correct - not even an ISM. Till you do - Creationism remains the only scientific premise there is. Know the difference.

Fact: Creationism is the world's oldest and most sustained scientific premise humanity possesses - and none have been able to negate it effectively: look what happened with two king kong religions obsessed at assuming their voluentary negation - both have been rendered mutually exclusive - as if there is a greater negation than that! The only way Creationism can be negated is to put something more effective on the table - and this has not happened yet.

Objections w/o alternative solutions are:

Objections w/o alternative solutions.

[IamJoseph]

Originally Posted by Ca$hback

The physical constant.
What created the creator in order to facilitate creation, the creator? It's the same paradox. If the big bang happened, what medium did it happen inside of?

Wrong. No paradox when correctly examined.

You have violated the FINITE factor. Once, in a finite universe, there would not have been any physicality [no elements, forces, heat, pineapples, etc], nor any notion of constancy [no contractions, expansions, laws, gravity, etc] - each of these relies on the prevalence of the other - and none of them can prevail without the other.

The Definition of the Creator is, according to the document which introduced this premise, is that the Creator is without change - able to transcend change ['I AM THE LORD - I HAVE NOT CHANGED'].

This is the only scientific definition of INFINITY - introduced by the document which first introduced the premise of FINITY [The universe is finite - it had a 'BEGINNING' - Genesis].

Anything which can change something is transcendent of whatever it changes.

Here, the question who created the Creator is a lack of understanding real science. INFINITY has no beginning - and nothing else in the universe can make such a claim. Any challenge of this factor arrives only at a set of never ending brick walls - proof it is the wrong path. The only path availabe, theorethically and manifestedly, is the Genesis position. Outside the Genesis position there is only NOTHINGNESS - as seen by your question, which is an objection without any alternative premise.

When someone presents anything not subject to change - they can claim Genesis wrong. Till then....