I would like to say I am an Atheist. But as far as I know, there is no term for someone who actually hates religion. But being merely a disbeliever, that is close enough. Unfortunately, there is the condition of man to consider. There is both a practical and an altruistic aspect to Human social interaction. In the form of religion, the altruistic aspect has far too often been turned against people. I tried to fix this. I wrote a free e-book called "Our Holy Hell: The Causes, The Solutions." It can be found by just entering the title into a web browser. Though I'm not asking you to read it. Even though in my opinion it is the most important book of its kind ever written, I only mention to prove my point.
Which is that despite the validity of the things in it, remarkably few people seem to be interested. This brings me back to the condition of man. It would seem that most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else. Which is a condition that I'm sure even many Atheists are probably guilty of. I know it must feel pretty good to know that you have your crap together more than a believer. But there is a good chance that even many Atheists prefer to be lied to when it comes right down to it. There is a step beyond to be taken. Though with most people unwilling or unable to accept just rational Atheism, what chance can Humanity have.
nice use of reverse psychology!
Not reverse psychology. Really. Don't read it. You will be pissed. Probably even more so because I make it absolutely clear why I an right.
Aron, Jewish people or jewish religion?
Blast away if it is not racially directed.
If you have ever read the bible, you know that the Israelites justified wiping out one people after another based on the belief that they were the chosen of god. You would also know that they didn't care for race mixing with non-Jews. So how can any arguments against such beliefs not have at lease some racial aspects to it. There is no way to separate a new beliefs from these old beliefs. It's as stupid as Mohammed selling the insane idea that god can change his mind. That the state of Israel exists shows that their old beliefs haven't disappeared. But I'm not going to argue with you about it. Go ahead and read my book. Then you will have more specific points of view to try to debunk. But if you try, all you are likely to do is drive yourself insane, or stupid.
Aron, in my opinion, religion is just a symptom of utilizing emotional responses. I don't think individuals would benefit in today's climate from acting purely on reason verses a balance with emotion. I agree that more reason should be utilized. But, that will only change when there is an immediate and perceptible benefit for individuals and their offspring. I am afraid that it will be a long time before our population in general doesn't subscribe to some form of woo.
Only a very small portion of our brains produce what is known as conscious thought. Other than that, we are likely no better than bacteria in a petri dish. Things will only change when it is too late. In my book I bring up many subjects. I give the answers to everything from bullying to what the best form of government is. That is in the room I have to do it. But the Human mind may not even be wired to accept unpleasant news. Our only way out is to have everybody read my book. But that isn't likely to happen.
I don't accept just rational Atheism, neither do I wish to hate religion. I have better things to do than read about religion or criticize religion. There's an actual real world in which we live, with lots of important stuff going on. That's more interesting than rehashing why religion is wrong, ad infinitum. I don't need to get self esteem by comparing myself favorably with theists, thanks.
What you say is called not really caring what happens. As long as it happens to someone else. I thank no god that I am not that self centered. You are also mistaken about my book being about why religion is wrong. Sure, there are many elements of that in it. But I mainly us it as a springboard to tell people what the right way to look at things is. No matter where you look, either with pollution, finance or world population, the word "Unsustainable keeps coming up. If that bothers you, then it is time to stand up and be counted. You need to read my book more than anybody I have responded to here.
Review of the book (I skimmed it, that's all that's needed):
I've went through this thread several times, actually, and looked up the book, trying to find a witty rebuttal, but I just couldn't. As soon as I started, the words slipped out from my tongue and dissipated in thin air. It's not really that the book has infallible logic, but that the logic wasn't really there to begin with. To start with the first 4 (out of 5) chapters are: The Stupidity of the Old Testament, The Evil of the Old Testament, the Stupidity of the New Testament, and finally, The Evil of the New Testament. Aron Loyd must have spent an inordinate amount of time making a line by line argument against the Bible starting from Genesis, but his arguments are mostly from disbelief, semantics, and an irreconciliation between a vaguely related scientific fact and how a specific line is interpreted -- out of context. Because let's be honest: Even if you disagree with everything the Bible has to say, you know it is meant to be read as chapters.
Starting from Chapter 5, titled Various Philosophies, and the Postscript, Aron offers his opinions on a variety of subjects without context in how it relates to the first 4 chapters, and also -- without proof. They may be sound opinions, such as better focus on parenting, or conservation or creation of energy (despite his self-professed lack of scientific knowledge), but he offers no real reason on why we should follow his advice, instead opting to present it as truth.
He will no doubt call anyone who disagrees a slave to religion, but that is just intellectual laziness justifying the lack of proper argument. The thing Aron could not answer is what rational atheism (i.e. the lack of belief in God) has to do with altruism, humanism, the environment, or a variety of political and social issues. I would first be curious as to what he thinks about empiricism as opposed to rationalism. And secondly, what he thinks about the is-ought problem.
It may sound like I'm being excessively harsh, but given the author's accusatory tone and pompous self-introduction, I believe he deserves no less.
Yes Jonathan, I was going to point-out his modesty... ;)
I wrote a reply to mister Chang's criticism. I think you should read it to. Also, I have some modesty for you. I don't have as Frank Zappa put it, a "Bo Peep" diploma. In fact, I dropped out of high school in my third year with three years of credits to make up. Yes. I am from the wrong side of the tracks. I have only been thinking of these types of things for about forty years. Also, I have had more religious arguments than I can shake a stick at. Which except maybe for one time, I won them all. So now you can attack me as an uneducated dummy. But if you do, read my book from cover to cover. Let's see who the real dummy is.