Is atheism hatred of religion and religious people?

Do you Hate the people next door?

Can you refrain from going next door and telling them?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2014/12/01/do-atheists-have-faith-2/

http://www.strangenotions.com/do-atheists-have-faith/

http://www.strangenotions.com/is-atheism-a-belief/

 
<h2 align=”center”></h2>
 

I don’t hate people for what they say or believe. Judge people by their actions; I hate the religious who murder cartoonists.

As to the last link you posted. They misunderstand agnosticism. It’s an epistemic claim and says nothing about belief. One can be a theistic agnostic or you can have an atheistic agnostic. The first speaks to belief the other to the impossibility of knowing.

The problem with agnosticism is it claims to know something about god; that it is beyond knowing. This is a contradiction.

atheistic agnostic= bulls~~~ theoretical physicists

I disagree. I think it reasonable that we should all believe in gravity, that the sky is blue, that the moon orbits the earth, etc. Reason and evidence will lead people to the same beliefs; Those that are irrational will simply go off the rails into delusion.

“…or that someone else is intellectually inferior simply because of there beliefs”

If someone beliefs something with insufficient evidence then they are negligent. If they believe something counter to reason and evidence then their beliefs are inferior.

“I find that the beliefs of others cannot effect me emotionally…Religious debates are fun for me for this reason…the winner in those debates is not the one who has more proving points or factual evidence for or against their beliefs or lack of beliefs, but the one who controls his emotions is the most intellectually superior…The one who is moved to intolerance and anger, they are like  a child having a tantrum…”

So you think Trolls are winners? The purpose of debate is not to provoke emotions and the one that does is just a troll not intellectually superior.

“Nothing is ever proven or dis proven, except who is more in control of their own emotions….”

Things are proven and dis-proven all the time; I’m sure you’ve heard of science and mathematics. I hope you’re not the “everything is subjective” type.

Believing (if that is even the right word) in gravity is a far cry from believing in some god or another.

Believing something without reason and no evidence is, by definition, irrational. And being lead by irrationalities separates people from the real word and leaves them stranded in delusion.

The radical feminist ignores evidence and reason and see where that has left them.

Reason is the only path to truth. In the feminist, we see what happens when emotions replace reason.

The “rational” man has no choice but to have faith in the observations and opinions of others.   One man cannot experience or observe everything.

The man of “faith” has no choice but to explain his faith through reason, otherwise it is blind and subject to personal whim.

It’s important to point out about atheism, which is merely the lack of belief in any god, that there are many opposed groups who claim the title. I prefer to loosely  identify two types of atheists. This separation isn’t to suggest people don’t fall in the grey area or that some atheist can’t be categorized this way:

One group has a purely emotional injury and adopted the title out of vengeance towards the church. You know them well; homosexuals and women. But if the church had dogma that didn’t offend them, they would be totting the cross hell or high water. This group does have some major points against the perpetual violation of human rights and moral negligence. There’s no shortage of proof for their claims but it’s a whole different topic.

The other group has a purely intellectual problem. You’ll hear them say things like, “The absence of evidence IS evidence for absence.” They have a point. For some time now, we’ve been able to detect everything. Even “dark energy” is measurable from our tiny planet, slinging galaxy clusters across open space. The intellectual atheist has a true gift for objective realism.

The main grievance is not only that the religious can’t surface the simplest requisite of some evidence but their whole narrative about the existence of such a being is totally anthropomorphic. In our sight of an incomprehensibly massive universe, it’s truly a foolish insult to deem it constructed. That assertion is merely us looking in the mirror. He creates, he destroys, he judges, he sacrifices, he loves, he expects loyalty and of course he had to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. He’s everything we are and everything we’d foolishly want to be.

Just picture homo Australopithecus, 3 millions years ago. He sees tasty fruit growing on a tree and thinks the tree has snubbed him when it won’t produce more fruit. We still do this, it anthropomorphic instinct. He sees the sun rolling through the sky casting light; which he assumes is for his benefit. Philosophers, with the help of telescopes and microscopes, no longer have to query in this vain way, thinking we’re da bomb, hopelessly enshrined in arrogance. To account for, this once adaptive characteristic turned flaw, we have to respect objective realism and what that road can lead us to.

Morals have a lot to do with beliefs. Beliefs can be translated to values. Values can be accounted for by facts. It’s not wrong to say, “It’s a fact that Muslims are immoral for stoning women to death for adultery.” In no sense does stoning her contribute to her well-being. I could on at length but it’s been thoroughly animated by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and many others.

At some point soon, we are going to have to globally agree that blinding little girls with acid for learning to read, or mutilating their genital, or preventing stem cell research that can save millions of people, or punishing people fro smoking weed or prostitution (victim less crimes) — we’re going to have to admit that these gifts from religion are antithesis to the progress of our species. The Christians have admittedly gotten better since their 14th century barbarism, but if they had possessed biological or nuclear weaponry. This is exactly what’s happening with a literally twice as violent dogma, held by 100’s of millions of people at the exact same insecure, 700 year adolescence phase. Islam will unmake this world if we don’t wise up and drop the bronze age delusions. The Christians can say nothing about the moral behavior of Muslims apart from “their praying to the wrong god.” If they were praying to the right god, what they are doing would be good apparently.

Thanks for reading. I quoted without citing Sam Harris here so I just want to give him due credit for borrowing his words.