Bitcoin Forum

Please watch the video before commenting (uploaded today)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hc1NPwXDKQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hc1NPwXDKQ)

The only reason atheists have morality is, they were trained by people who were trained by people who were trained by people... way back to a time when the morals of the various religions, especially Christianity, ruled... and when there was very little if any atheism.

If there was no morality of Christianity and other religions, atheist morality would only exist as any individual atheist agreed on within himself. This could range from essentially no morality, to a morality stricter than the most strict formal religions of today. Such religious activity on the part of atheists would make atheism the most erratic religion of all.

As it is, the morality of atheism is inbred, automatic training coming mostly from Christianity.

8)

(anti-Atheist bigotry removed)

The bigotry runs deep.  Most people think Atheism means immorality. 

The word Atheist has a negative connotation.  People associate word God with something good, noble, so no God means no good.

Millennia of religious indoctrination are hard to reverse.

This isn't bigotry. Most people simply doesn't like aggressive and arrogant dickheads, who used to humiliate them and mocking at their beliefs :).

big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/
noun
noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries

    intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
    "the difficulties of combating prejudice and bigotry"

ya-ba-da-ba-do!!!  About time our Flintstones friend showed up.

BADecker,

A person morality does not come from being trained by other people.  Not sure what you mean?
My morality is not that of my parents, my teachers or my priests.

Most Atheists use their head to evaluate what is moral and what is not.  Religion is definitely not any source of morals
for Atheists.
 
For me, I apply several tests to see if an action is moral.  The most important factors for me are:

- if the action causes suffering, it is immoral
- if the action causes harm, it is immoral

Sorry to break your bubble, but Christianity and especially Bible is the worst example of morality.
My morality is not even remotely Christian.

If this isn't bigotry... pray tell us, what qualifies as bigotry?

Calling for the murder of Atheists... simply because they do not believe your bullshit... isn't bigotry?!?

(bear in mind, unlike the Christians who talk a big game, but are all bark and no bite... Muslims will fucking murder an Atheist without a second thought)

There you go, almost formally expressing that you would rather have trouble, pain and death over life.

Since the atheist doesn't know that here is no God, because he has never proved it, makes the practicing atheist a faithful, hopeful person... especially in the face of the science that proves that God exists.

Atheism, the most pathetic of all religions. Atheists, the most pathetic of all people, setting themselves up as gods by making the decision there is no God when they don't have enough info to think that way, and all the while claiming that they are people of science. Self-destruction mentality. "I as a god make the decision that god does not exist."

8)

So, basically, you're saying that the only thing that makes you a moral person is your religion, and without religion you wouldn't have a moral compass?

You got it, man. Since God wrote His laws on your heart, dim and dulled though they have become, your religion is the reason you are moral, as well.

8)

Interesting. I wonder if that's typical of religious people?

If it is, it means that a proportion of the people attracted to religions are those that have no moral compass and need one supplied by a religion in order to fit in with society. Not all religious people, of course, just those that give religion a bad name (ISIS raping captives, Christians killing non-Christians, etc)

It always amazes me how many Christians say something to the effect of, "If I knew for certain that God didn't exist, nothing would stop me from becoming a rapist and murderer"

It blows my mind how close murder some religious people claim to be...

I always refer to Penn Jillette who says, "As an Atheist, I have raped and murdered exactly the number of people that I want to rape and murder... that number is zero"

As an atheist living in South-east Asia, I have never faced any discrimination from anyone. In my opinion, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists.etc are more tolerant about atheism, when compared to the Christians and Muslims. In the United States and the Middle East, you may face discrimination for being an atheist. But in South-east Asia and East Asia, there is no such thing.

Interesting. I wonder if that's typical of religious people?

If it is, it means that a proportion of the people attracted to religions are those that have no moral compass and need one supplied by a religion in order to fit in with society. Not all religious people, of course, just those that give religion a bad name (ISIS raping captives, Christians killing non-Christians, etc)

It is typical of all religious people... even you and your religion of atheism or whatever it is.

First, it is in the hearts of all people. Then, because people "lose heart," a formal religion strengthens what they have forgotten. Of course, the religion of atheism doesn't have dogma enough to strengthen anyone's heart in a moral way.

8)

If this isn't bigotry... pray tell us, what qualifies as bigotry?

Calling for the murder of Atheists... simply because they do not believe your bullshit... isn't bigotry?!?

(bear in mind, unlike the Christians who talk a big game, but are all bark and no bite... Muslims will fucking murder an Atheist without a second thought)

Go and complain at the muslims then. Perhaps you guys got used to messing with mostly peaceful christians but it appears in the case of muslims the ice-cream licked back :). Shit happens. You might want to keep harassing the peaceful ones.

Please watch the video before commenting (uploaded today)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hc1NPwXDKQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hc1NPwXDKQ)

Yeah, because those militaristic Muslims just love Christians and Jews and only hate atheists, right? 

And who is messing with whom? I don't care what you believe, but I do care what theists attempt to make other people believe about me. That's not "messing with you", that's self - defense.

You see, nowadays we so called theists used to accept or at least ignore the beliefs of others, only militant atheist and muslim extremists used to think that they must not tolerate others with different views, because of freeing people from their superstitions is their ultimate moral obligation :).

You see, nowadays we so called theists used to accept or at least ignore the beliefs of others,

only militant atheist and muslim extremists used to think that they must not tolerate others with different views, because of freeing people from their superstitions is their ultimate moral obligation :).

I don't know any militant atheists or muslims as well as you clearly do so I can't speak for them. But personally, I don't care what your religious views are. What I care about are people attempting to lie or coerce or bamboozle. If I see that sort of behaviour, I step in.

Otherwise, who cares which superstition you believe in? I don't want you to stop doing what makes you happy, but you must expect resistance when you proselytise.

How can you tell that when I actually "attempting to lie or coerce or bamboozle" or "proselytise"?

How can you tell that I'm a "militant atheist ....... must not tolerate others with different views, because of freeing people from their superstitions is their ultimate moral obligation"?

Am I told such thing? As far as can remember I've made a generic statement about "militant atheists". Are you a militant atheist?

In that case, I was also speaking generally.

Am I told such thing? As far as can remember I've made a generic statement about "militant atheists". Are you a militant atheist?

I don't know about "militant Atheists" (seems like a misnomer... did you mean militant Anti-theist?)

I know a guy who self-identifies as a militant Agnostic... does that count?

What Is A 'Militant Agnostic' And 'Agnostic-Atheism'?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcRK9eF3ToQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcRK9eF3ToQ)

Lol!

"atheism is the biggest crime ever"
Yeah ok, I'd rather live in an atheist city than in a rapists city xD

you are right .. i would rather be an atheist than be a rapist or murderer..

Answering a question by speaking generally? That's an interesting concept, I'd be happy to learn how to do that:). If once I want to make a political carrier or have to answer questions like "Honey, am I fat?" your method would be very useful.

I would rather live in an Atheist city than a Muslim city, or even a Christian city... Atheists have better morals than Christians, and are more polite (I've never had an Atheist tell my that I will burn in hell for eternity)

In general that is the case. But there are exceptions. I have met individuals from mainland China, who claims that they are atheist. Some of them were very rude. On the other hand, I have heard about the Amish people. They are conservative Christians, and at the same time, they are renowned for their politeness and down-to-earth lifestyle.

So... You claim Amish are Christian?... Do you also claim Mormons are Christian?  Where do you draw the line? Muslims?

The Amish and the Mormons are Christian. Why you are having doubts about it? Going by your logic, I can clam that the Shiites are not Muslims, and only the Wahhabis are Muslims.

Just to remember you: The real name of the Mormon church is - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

They believe in Christ, and therefore they are Christian.

Moloch is trying to make himself as a victim, although he attacks other type of people all the time.
Jesus loves you too Moloch, you can give up all that anger

Moloch is trying to make himself as a victim, although he attacks other type of people all the time.
Jesus loves you too Moloch, you can give up all that anger  :)

I always refer to Penn Jillette who says, "As an Atheist, I have raped and murdered exactly the number of people that I want to rape and murder... that number is zero"

You're saying it's okay to murder as many people as you want.

As long as that number is zero.

No, that's not what he said.

He said the only reason he's never murdered anyone is because he's never felt like it.

The number is currently zero, but it could change to any number based on the same principles.

I think you're talking out of your arse here.

Why not hear it from the man himself?

Because I don't need some man to tell me what's right and what's wrong.

Especially not some ancient out-of-date sociopath from the 1960s, with a ponytail but without a conscience.

I see... you only trust ancient out-of-date sociopaths from the stone-age?

It's sad that you will sit here and argue without even bothering to listen to what an Atheist has to say...

Hippies from the 1960s looked ridiculous and acted even worse.
...
I disagreed with a statement on its own merit, don't make it all about you.

Did you know that Penn Jillette has never so much as had a sip of alcohol in his life?

Muslims and Mormons don't drink either,

Penn Jillette is legit... prove he lied

or stop with all the bullshit slander

I never said he lied.  I said you believe him on faith.

But you're the one making a claim, so the burden is on you to prove it.
What you're asking is impossible:  to prove that someone's drinking doesn't exist.

You say you don't believe that Mormons abstain;  I just believe in one teetotaller fewer than you believe in.






Could you please quote one thing I've said that could in any way be interpreted as slander?

You posted a single quote, and I presented a logical refutation of that statement.  
Now you're freaking out because someone doesn't agree with everything you say.
Stop trying to force your morality and worldview on everyone else.

Because I don't need some man to tell me what's right and what's wrong.

Especially not some ancient out-of-date sociopath from the 1960s, with a ponytail but without a conscience.

If his teachings are so good and true, why do people have such vastly different interpretations of the meaning?

According to his own words, the only difference between himself and a murderer is a mere difference in taste or personal preference.  He likes blue, murderers happen to like red instead.  He does whatever he wants to do, and so do murderers.  He's admitting that he lives by the same rules that murderers live by.

Murderers just have wrong thoughts, but he is pure and perfect.
That's why he's never murdered anyone - because he doesn't want to.
What if he did want to kill someone?
His solution for immoral behavior seems to be "never have any immoral desires". 
Since he can't back that up logically, you'll have to abbreviate it to "anything you want to do is good."

And for some reason you actually still follow and preach these long-abandoned ideas -
ideas that were only popular with narcissists and spoiled white kids 50 years ago in the tie-dye age,
with the highest concentration seen among homeless STD-ridden drug addicts.
Their ambition in life was to avoid work and avoid soap,
but some of them are still on TV being worshiped.  Sad.

Don't take it so defensively. Both Moloch and organofcorti are a couple of deceptive, political science trolls, who blabber on just to cover up the posts of people who make sense.

8)

Meh...

Considering your words and your "reasoning" (notice the "") I'd say you would mean someone to teach you one or two things yeah xD

No, that's not what he said.

He said the only reason he's never murdered anyone is because he's never felt like it.

The number is currently zero, but it could change to any number based on the same principles.

According to his own words, the only difference between himself and a murderer is a mere difference in taste or personal preference.  He likes blue, murderers happen to like red instead.  He does whatever he wants to do, and so do murderers.  He's admitting that he lives by the same rules that murderers live by.


Murderers just have wrong thoughts, but he is pure and perfect.
That's why he's never murdered anyone - because he doesn't want to.
What if he did want to kill someone?
His solution for immoral behavior seems to be "never have any immoral desires".  
Since he can't back that up logically, you'll have to abbreviate it to "anything you want to do is good."

I never said he lied.  I said you believe him on faith.

But you're the one making a claim, so the burden is on you to prove it.
What you're asking is impossible:  to prove that someone's drinking doesn't exist.

It is easily possible to prove something that does not exist.

I have no elephants in my house. Or I am not drinking alcohol.

Only true in the trivial cases where something is provable, but not true for all cases. Do you have invisible microscopic elephants that run from you when you attempt to investigate them? Have you drunk alcohol that tastes and smells like like water and does not get you drunk and that someone has been putting in your water pipes?

This is an illustration of why the burden of proof regarding the existence of god is with those who claim a god or gods to exist.

Since when are provable arguments trivial?

When the definition of elephant includes "invisible microscopic elephants" and the definition of alcohol includes "alcohol that tastes and smells like like water and does not get you drunk" then you may have a point.
But currently neither are true so your argument fails as a strawman.

The point being that it is possible to prove a negative.

This does not mean that it is possible that God does or does not exist, unless you define God as such that such a statement actually becomes provable.
Given that there is no universally consistent  set of properties attributable to God that does make it harder to prove anything.

Anecdotal evidence does not constitute proof... you cannot prove a negative claim...

You might remember what you ate for breakfast, but you could never prove it to anyone

Since when are provable arguments trivial?

When the definition of elephant includes "invisible microscopic elephants" and the definition of alcohol includes "alcohol that tastes and smells like like water and does not get you drunk" then you may have a point.
But currently neither are true so your argument fails as a strawman.

The point being that it is possible to prove a negative.

This does not mean that it is possible that God does or does not exist, unless you define God as such that such a statement actually becomes provable.
Given that there is no universally consistent  set of properties attributable to God that does make it harder to prove anything.

I became an atheist after God lured me into his sex van and raped me...

Blah blah blah

Once again, Atheism is not a religion, and does not believe anything beyond, "Your God does not exist"

Once again, there is even a post where I stood the dictionary definition of "religion" up against atheism, and showed that atheism is a religion.

Since anyone can do this except, obviously, you... mwahahahahaha.

8)

Only one of the dictionary definitions. None of the other definitions show that.

Here's one that shows that atheism quite clearly is *not* a religion:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods"

Your definition might be in dictionaries, but it's not the common definition.

So now you are essentially saying that people are idiots, and don't read the dictionary. Like they listen to you rather than the dictionary.

That's okay, though. Since it seems to make you feel better - at least on the outside.

So now you are essentially saying that people are idiots, and don't read the dictionary. Like they listen to you rather than the dictionary.

That's okay, though. Since it seems to make you feel better - at least on the outside.

8)

No, that's not what I'm saying, as you're well aware. Don't just believe me - I gave you a link to the dictionary, use it.

Once again, there is even a post where I stood the dictionary definition of "religion" up against atheism, and showed that atheism is a religion.

Since anyone can do this except, obviously, you... mwahahahahaha.

8)

Implying at least 2 logical fallacies and a wrong definition, yes you managed to "prove" this.

Nothing to imply. Stand the dictionary defs up against religion, and you will find that atheism is a religion. Now, I'll grant you that some people will press the issue saying that atheism is only a philosophy. But atheism is so close to religion that it might as well be one if it isn't.

religion
noun re·li·gion \ri-ˈli-jən\
Popularity: Top 1% of lookups
Simple Definition of religion

    : the belief in a god or in a group of gods

    : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

What Is Atheism?

No one asks this question enough.

The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences...

...Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.

Irreligion (adjective form: non-religious or irreligious) is the absence, indifference, or rejection of religion.[1]

When characterized as the rejection of religious belief, it encompasses atheism, agnosticism, religious dissidence, and secular humanism. When characterized as the absence of religious belief, it may also include "spiritual but not religious", pandeism, ignosticism, nontheism, pantheism, panentheism, and freethought. When characterized as indifference to religion, it is known as apatheism.

Since you are too lazy to look at a dictionary... here's a link and quote

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion)

Pray tell us, how does an Atheist fit either of these definitions?

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion:
a religion to one's vow.

Here is another refutation from actual Atheists...

https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism (https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism)

And finally, since I know you love Wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion)

When you examine anything that expresses something, you find that the people who are doing the expressing have a religion going for themselves. Dictionary.com, as I have shown above, lets us know that if for no other reason, blatant expressing is a religion under #6 which says, "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

Atheism is alive and active. It is a religion.

8)

...a religion under #6 which says, "blah blah blah"

Atheists are not as bad as rapist. They do not violate your free will.

Because, just like theists, they are not smart enough to know how to live freely except that they go to God for the instructions God has placed in the Bible.

Their problem is that they don't realize how using their freedom to rape (for example) actually takes their freedom from them. They start to realize it when they are thrown into prison, where they lose a lot of their freedoms.

God damn it you are such a stupid fucking asshole

Atheists are the most moral of all people (evidenced by statistics)... 20% of Americans are Atheist, yet only 0.2% of prisoners are Atheists... do you need any more statistics than that?

According to prison statistics, Christians are 10,000% (100x) more likely to commit a felony than an Atheist...

People like to think Blacks commit more crimes than White people... but it's only like 3-to-1... Christian vs Atheist is 100-to-1... Basically, Christians are the ones committing the vast majority of crimes in America... statistically proven to be true

Wait, did you just say religious people are too stupid to know how to live without reading instructions from bible?

Tsk, tsk. How you talk! Just be glad God doesn't take your freedom away for how you misuse it.

How's the statistics for how many before-prison atheists find religion when inside?

As far as Christians doing worse than atheists (if your statistics are even accurate), the devil already has the atheists. He doesn't need to work so hard on them. He is trying to get the Christians, so he focuses on tempting them. Since Christians are only people, they often fall for this greater tempting to do wrong. Doesn't mean they are less saved as Christians... or that atheists will be saved at all as long as they remain atheists.

Turn while you can, and be saved for eternal life. As it is, you are throwing your freedom away.

8)

You use science and statistics when it suits your purpose and then ignore them or denigrate them when it doesn't, so  it would be best if you do not weigh in on anything to do with science or with statistics.

Here you go again, not providing links to the things that you say, nor explaining what you are talking about.

As most of the people can see, you are simply full of deceit. But, you are a person, and until your end comes, I respect that. Why do I respect that? Because there is always the chance, no matter how slim, that you will turn to God and be saved.

8)

So you're just going to go with not trusting statistics or science, then? That your final answer?

I don't really know what you mean.

If by "science" you mean science theories, why would anyone trust them, since they have not been proven to be factual? Of course, there is a way that you can trust science theories. You can trust that they are theories until they have been proven to be factual.

Why do you often suggest all kinds of generalities, as well as suggesting that someone thinks a certain way about those generalities? And then you won't even answer the question about why you do this?

8)

If by "science" you mean science theories, why would anyone trust them, since they have not been proven to be factual? Of course, there is a way that you can trust science theories. You can trust that they are theories until they have been proven to be factual.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from, and in contrast to, the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". As used in everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" implies that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, or hypothesis; such a usage is the opposite of a scientific theory.

It's a shame gravity is just a theory... I suppose that means there is a chance gravity doesn't exist?

I suppose if you think gravity is "just a theory", that it doesn't affect you?

Naw, you're wrong... Both gravity and evolution are proven to be a true, factual and predictive representation of reality... which is basically what a theory means in science... learn your words

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)

See? This is where you are either mixed up, or you are not being clear intentionally. The law of gravity is not a theory. The explanation of why gravity works the way it does is the thing that is the theory.

Gravity law is law. Gravity theory is theory.



Regarding evolution, something exists. It has been termed evolution. Since the thing that exists, does indeed exist, if you call it evolution, then evolution exists.

Evolution theory talks about some things that are not known to exist. It also talks about the reasons why the existence termed "evolution" exists, and why some of the things in evolution theory might exist.

They are two different things... evolution and evolution theory.

People can write all kinds of things in Wikipedia. A lot of Wikipedia is not truth. It is a good starting point, to see what a subject is about in general. But it needs to be backed up by other info before it can be known to be factual.

This is something like Quantum Physics. QP is complex probability. It always needs to be backed up by something else before it can be known to be factual.

Just because a scientific theory is often made up of some science facts, does not make the theory itself to be factual. The theory takes the facts and combines and twists them into something new that is not known to be factual until it has been proven factual.

For example. Big Bang Theory probably will never be known to be true. Why not? As good as it might sound, there is no way to go back 13 or 14 billion years to see if it is true. There is always the chance that something unforeseen might have been there to make all the best BB theory to be non-factual.

It's the same with all science theory. Until it is proven to be factual, it is just theory, even if it has the word "science" in front of it.

Blah blah, meaningless drivel

Name something in evolution "that is not known to exist"... anything at all... don't make a claim you can't back up with facts and evidence

To quote, well you... "It always needs to be backed up by something else before it can be known to be factual"

Big Bang Theory is something completely different from Evolution, and was actually invented by a Christian (do some research)

You make things up, like saying there is a difference between "evolution" and "evolution theory"... there is not... these are talking about the same thing... quit intentionally lying to people

You can have morality and ethics without religion. This is something that many religious people fail to understand!

It's kinda the other way. Everybody has morals and ethics in one form or another, because everybody has religion, even though it may not be one of the formal religions.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t

8)

EDIT: To see that this is true, consider all the people of a particular formal religion. No two people believe their religion in exactly the same way. Usually they formally claim that they accept some doctrine that the leaders proclaim, or that is in some religious books. But because they all understand it differently, there are simply a bunch of people with their own individual religion that happen to go under the name and banner of a particular formal religion.

It's like this with all the people in the world... except that some don't have a religion that is formally stated to be a religion.

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]
Spell  Syllables
Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

Idioms
9.
get religion, Informal.
to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
to resolve to mend one's errant ways:
The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.


noun
1.
belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
2.
any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief: the Christian religion
3.
the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers
4.
(mainly RC Church) the way of life determined by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience entered upon by monks, friars, and nuns: to enter religion
5.
something of overwhelming importance to a person: football is his religion
6.
(archaic)
the practice of sacred ritual observances
sacred rites and ceremonies
Word Origin
C12: via Old French from Latin religiō fear of the supernatural, piety, probably from religāre to tie up, from re- + ligāre to bind

Did you even read your link?





Only some of these definitions agree with your definition of "religion" whereas all of them agree with my (atheism excluding) definition of religion.

Your dictatorial-like suggesting of what other people think doesn't work. Nobody knows what other people think... except God, of course. So, in your brazen suggesting that you know what I think, you are essentially suggesting that you are God. Fine attitude for a self-proclaimed atheist.

Of course, when a person looks at the definitions of religion above, from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t, it is easy to see that atheism falls into the definition.

Since your definition of "atheism" doesn't fit the above definition by your own words "... (atheism excluding) ..." why don't you call what you are saying is atheism according to what it really is? Oh, that's right. You can't. Why not? Atheism is self-defeating. It doesn't exist. Atheism is an oxymoron, if for no other reason than an atheist can't believe that God doesn't exist, because there is too much evidence in science and nature that shows that God exists.

What is an atheist doing if he isn't and really can't be an atheist? He is setting himself up as god, against nature and science. No atheism. Simply lying self worship.

8)

Dictatorial? No. I'm pointing out that your definition is not supported by your link.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

There you go again, acting like the definition is my definition. Just because I link to a definition doesn't make it mine. However...

From the definition:
Regarding those atheists who adamantly profess their atheism, #6 shows atheism to be a religion. You don't need me to do it. You don't need my definition. It's the standard definition.

8)

Your personal definition of religion does not agree with all the definitions given above.

The more widely accepted defintion of religion agrees with all the definitions given at "Dictionary.com".

This means that using the "dictionary.com" link does not work in your favour.

In order to bolster your argument, you need to post a link where the reverse is true.

What makes me sad, is that instead of talking about bitcoin on the BITCOIN FORUM, they decide to spend their days shitposting and shitposting about atheism and how they are oppressed.
I'm not saying that the religious part of this non-stop ideology war is not at fault, it takes two to tango. But if you added up the useless, redundant posts about the exact same thing, by like three people, mainly af_newbie and Moloch, it would count into the hundreds.
This is from a person who has no religious affiliation, you lot need to get a life.
Start a flame war somewhere else.

Of course you little bunch of atheists are going to throw out the parts of the religion definition that you don't like, as much as you can.

If I stand up like a god and make a proclamation about definitions, great. I believe in God. When an atheist stands up like a god and makes a proclamation about definitions, he nullifies his atheism. Why? Because he is turning himself into the exact thing that he says doesn't exist, simply by doing the things that a god would do.

Then when in the face of all the nature science evidence proof for the existence of God, the atheist adamantly sets himself up as great god by expressing firmly that God doesn't exist, the atheist squashes himself by what he expresses.

Perhaps you are taking atheism out of the realm of religion. You are moving it into the realm of pure science fiction. Doesn't the weight of your self-nullification even bother you? Of course not! Why would a lie bother the lie?... except that lying about the lie starts to turn it into a truth. Yes! God exists in even the atheists and their atheism.

8)

Please watch the video before commenting (uploaded today)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hc1NPwXDKQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hc1NPwXDKQ)

these people are totatly insane.. atheism is not a worst thing on  this creepy earth.. people who commented on this topic are delusional and are possible future murderers for sure.. i dont want to live on this earth anymore..

I am not "throwing out the parts of the religion definition". As I said, the usual defintion of religion is absolutely consistent with all of the definitions at Dictionary.com

Your defintion of religion is consistent with only some of the definitions at Dictionary.com

You need to ignore some of the definitions to make your idea of religion work. I do not need to do this, as I've explained clearly and in many different ways.

If you don't get it, you're just wilfully ignoring the obvious.

There you go again, claiming to be a mind reader by suggesting what my definition is when I haven't expressed it.

Actually, atheism as a religion matches the whole definition of religion. Why? Because atheists are people. And being people, they have all the parts within themselves that any other people have. Because of this, an atheist grounded in his atheism HAS a religion of atheism going for himself, even if his formal definition of atheism and religion should somehow not match the written definition.

Atheism isn't anything without people/atheists. Atheists are people, and people are religious creatures by nature. In the case of the atheist, his religion happens to be atheism.

8)

Of course you have expressed your defintion of religion -- it's one that includes atheism. In fact, in the next sentence you go on to say that very thing, as you have many time before. You ignore the fact that it contradicts many other defintion of religion, and also contradicts all defintion of atheism.

I think baddekker has a point here as an atheist i more ideal in proofs that miracles. Now there is this saying to atheists that "if u cant see your brain then u have no brain?" there's a proof there a brain but u ur self can only see on images. Back to my point i agree that atheist always think high of themselves we tend to belittle some religious people cause they have on hope on something thats not there. And atheist just accept whats gonna happen and Hope someone or some situation is there.

Of course you have expressed your defintion of religion -- it's one that includes atheism. In fact, in the next sentence you go on to say that very thing, as you have many time before. You ignore the fact that it contradicts many other defintion of religion, and also contradicts all defintion of atheism.

When BADecker wants to use definitions and proofs, he or she does. When he/she doesn't, proofs and definitions are ignored.

I don't have any problem with someone making a claim on faith that god exists, but when that person claims to have a proof that god exists or claim to be able to prove that a word means something completely different to the way in which dictionaries define that word, then we are on completely different ground.

Since you haven't refuted the scientific proof that God exists

Since you haven't refuted the scientific proof that God exists, yet seem to be making the adamant claim that the scientific proof isn't there, you prove that you have a religion going for yourself, simply by your belief.

I could be wrong, of course. I have no real evidence you are human. And if you are not human, maybe you don't need religion like all the humans do.

8)

Funny.
Badecker is still there with his "proofs"?

Why are you still replying? ^^
If badecker even cared for logic or real argument he would agree to list his arguments in an ordered and precise way so we can refute them one by one.
As he prefers to just give vague un unreliable explanations without ever defining his terms or context, he's probably even aware that it's nothing but wind.

SO you can't convince him, cause convincing need the other one to think in a , if not perfectly logical, at least reasonnable reliable way.

It's good practice. Of course I won't convince BADecker but it's an interesting task to unravel the tangled logic that he/she produces, and it's a difficult process to argue against since BADecker is usually not starting from a foundation of logic or knowledge.

It doesn't matter how I explain the proof that science gives for the existence of God. You simply aren't interested in hearing it, or in thinking it through. You both are stuck in your atheism religion, and you like it that way. If you weren't stuck, or didn't like it, you would go out and examine science and nature to see that God really does exist.

The other idea is that you know that God exists, and are simply fighting Him.

8)

You haven't given any scientific proof. Name one piece of scientific evidence you have to support your theory. Name one experiment you've performed to obtain said evidence.

You have neither, so you have no 'scientific proof'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hc1NPwXDKQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hc1NPwXDKQ)

According to a 2012 official survey 26.6% of the population of Primorsky Krai adheres to the Russian Orthodox Church, 6% are unaffiliated generic Christians, 1% adheres to other Orthodox churches or is an Orthodox believer without belonging to any church, and 1% of the population adheres to the Slavic native faith (Rodnovery) or to local Siberian native faiths. In addition, 24% of the population declares to be "spiritual but not religious, 35% is atheist, and 6.4% follows other religions or did not give an answer to the question.

That isn't my job or goal. I have given you all the info you need to go and look at the proof where it exists.

See the freedom I have given you? I have given you the freedom to stay ignorant, or to inform yourself. Looks like you would rather stay ignorant.

8)

It might not be your "job or goal" to make such claims about a "scientific proof of god", but you sure do seem to make that claim a lot. Are you backing away from your "scientific proof of god" claim now?

I'm not  athiests but it's pretty crap that people treat them like this.

Is it really that terrible to talk to someone who doesn't believe what you do?

So far, that I am aware of, I don't have a "scientific proof of God" claim. So, there is nothing for me to back away from. However, if you would like to see the scientific proof for God, simply research the info that I have made available many times, about cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy.

8)

You claim to not have a scientific proof of god anymore?

Did you realise you were wrong, or have you changed your mind about needing a scientific proof of god?

You seem to be hung up on the idea that I have some claim regarding scientific proof that God exists. Yet you won't tell us what you think my claim is. Because of this it is very difficult to even know what you are talking about.

Science itself has the proof that God exists. There are at least two ways that Science proves this.

1. Cause and effect combined with complex universe combined with universal entropy, is one of the ways that science proves that God exists.

2. The fact that nature acts like a big, complex machine proves God. Why? Because all of our machines have machine-makers. We have no experience of any of our machines that have come about spontaneously, without a machine maker. Since the machine universe is as complex as it is, Whoever made it fits our definition of the word "God."

8)

That is not a scientific proof, as you well know. It's just armchair philosophy, and illogical at that.

Firstly, the first statement is nonsensical, since "complex universe" is a term you made up and have yet to explain.

The second statement is just the fallacious "Watchmaker analogy".

Hume's reply to this (several hundred years ago) was:
1. We have no experience with world-building, so how can you know that a godless world (or universe) would appear any different?
2. Machines and nature are not similar enough to for one to draw an analogy
3. Even if there is a 'designer' this is not proof of an omnipotent and personal god.

This has been addressed and answered many times in the hundreds of years since, so I'm not sure why you think it could possibly be a useful argument in favour of God.


In summary, you have no scientific or logical proof of god.

Of course what I said isn't proof. However, if one were to scientifically test the points that I speak about, he would find the proof.

8)

Scientifically test what? How? Exactly what experiment can you perform to prove god exists ?

You are going to have to use your brain on this one a little. After all, I have repeated it over and over.

Isaac Newton formulated his 3rd Law. Before he formulated it, there were others who thought about it, and dismissed it because they thought it was too basic to need formulation as a law. Cause and effect is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law.

Now all you need is to understand that the universe is complex, be it from a scientific standpoint or not, and that universal entropy exists. Once you understand these things, you can combine them to find that God exists. If He didn't, at least one of these 3 (laws?) wouldn't exist.

The writeup of the proof would probably be more than Bitcointalk allows in a post. But, maybe not.

So let’s accept ‘for the sake of the argument’ that (1) all causes produce their effects in conformity with the laws of nature, (2) laws require a lawmaker, and (3) only God could have made the laws of nature (leading to the conclusion that God exists)—and push this line of reasoning a little bit further. Clearly, if God made the laws of nature, then this happened, right? And if everything that happens conforms to the laws of nature, then God’s act of making the laws of nature must have conformed to the laws of nature too (because it’s something that happened). Now think about this for a moment and you’ll see how mind-twistingly weird it is. If it’s true that God’s act of making the laws of nature had to conform to the laws of nature, then the laws of nature had to exist before God made them! But that’s crazy, because nothing can exist before it existed.

You could simply link the source of your information so we can debunk it... like this guy:
http://philosophytalk.org/community/blog/david-livingstone-smith/2015/04/do-natural-laws-prove-god-exists-new-wrinkle-old (http://philosophytalk.org/community/blog/david-livingstone-smith/2015/04/do-natural-laws-prove-god-exists-new-wrinkle-old)



None of us are stupid enough to believe that you created this, "3 laws prove God exists" idea on your own... you have never had an original idea, ever...

Please post the source of your misinformation... please?

Is it this article?
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106 (http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106)

You are going to have to use your brain on this one a little. After all, I have repeated it over and over.

Isaac Newton formulated his 3rd Law. Before he formulated it, there were others who thought about it, and dismissed it because they thought it was too basic to need formulation as a law. Cause and effect is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law.

Now all you need is to understand that the universe is complex, be it from a scientific standpoint or not, and that universal entropy exists. Once you understand these things, you can combine them to find that God exists. If He didn't, at least one of these 3 (laws?) wouldn't exist.

The writeup of the proof would probably be more than Bitcointalk allows in a post. But, maybe not.

8)

Google "cause and effect"  "complex universe"  "entropy" to find all the info you need to combine to prove that God exists.

Ages ago, this was standard understanding until scientists started to desperately attempt to prove these things wrong. Since they haven't been able to do it, they start to lie by saying that theories are fact when they don't know it for certain.

Am I telling you that you have to research anything? Of course not. You don't even have to think for all I care.

8)

"Complex universe" is not a thing. It's just something you've made up.