choose a faith is a person's choice. one can not impose the will of others. and if you have been born like that so it was a destiny. everyone has a way of life and destiny, respectively.
It is NOT a destiny. God leaves open a little part of every heart to accept Him or reject Him. Based on how a person feels about God, God controls the rest of the person's life. Please follow your own advice: It always needs to be backed up by something else before it can be known to be factual.
Stop making bullshit claims without backing it up with evidence... if you have no evidence to support your opinion... why would anyone listen/care? Hey, man. I stopped making BS claims years ago. It's your turn now.  |
|
|
|
Atheists do not believe god and religion believe god So they hate religion.
I also do not believe in the tooth fairy, santa claus, unicorns, and pokemon... does that mean I hate all those too? How do you hate something you do not believe exists? Atheists know God/god exists. They know it because they set themselves up as gods by simply suggesting that God doesn't exists when they know that they don't know for sure that He doesn't. Regardless of accuracy, that is not a logically valid statement. 1. Premise: Atheists set themselves up as a gods 2. Conclusion: Therefore there is a God. Unless you're saying that atheists are the One True God, your statement is not logically valid. Try again. Just because you choose to not understand, or to hide the fact that you DO understand, doesn't make my statement to not be logically valid. However, for you, I will clarify. People who have faith that God exists, while at the same time don't understand the scientific proof that God exists, and don't have a view of nature sufficient to know that God exists, have God simply by their faith. Atheists formally and outwardly claim God to not exists, but by doing this they are setting themselves up as gods, thereby nullifying their claim by making their claim. Of course, then their are those who know that God exists by viewing the scientific proof, or by viewing nature. The point is, everybody knows that God/god exists in one form or another. That's not what you wrote. You wrote "Atheists set themselves up as a gods" and went on to claim this as a proof of god. Are you backing away from this claim now, or do you care to explain how "setting oneself up as a god" proves that your god exists? Now now. Since that claim can't be found, what are you really trying to say? That atheists don't set themselves up as gods, against the true God that science and nature have proven to exist? |
|
|
|
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. 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. 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. 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, 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. |
|
|
|
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. 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. 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. Just because you state that the definition of religion doesn't include atheism, doesn't mean that it doesn't. However, all kinds of people believe all kinds of things. So, you are certainly welcome to continue on with your belief, whatever it might be. Since there are many people who show how the definition of religion fits atheism (simply Google "atheism religion"), and since it is basically only the atheists who are adamantly against this idea, atheism is definitely a religion of the atheists. |
|
|
|
Atheists do not believe god and religion believe god So they hate religion.
I also do not believe in the tooth fairy, santa claus, unicorns, and pokemon... does that mean I hate all those too? How do you hate something you do not believe exists? Atheists know God/god exists. They know it because they set themselves up as gods by simply suggesting that God doesn't exists when they know that they don't know for sure that He doesn't. Regardless of accuracy, that is not a logically valid statement. 1. Premise: Atheists set themselves up as a gods 2. Conclusion: Therefore there is a God. Unless you're saying that atheists are the One True God, your statement is not logically valid. Try again. Just because you choose to not understand, or to hide the fact that you DO understand, doesn't make my statement to not be logically valid. However, for you, I will clarify. People who have faith that God exists, while at the same time don't understand the scientific proof that God exists, and don't have a view of nature sufficient to know that God exists, have God simply by their faith. Atheists formally and outwardly claim God to not exists, but by doing this they are setting themselves up as gods, thereby nullifying their claim by making their claim. Of course, then their are those who know that God exists by viewing the scientific proof, or by viewing nature. The point is, everybody knows that God/god exists in one form or another. |
|
|
|
Atheists do not believe god and religion believe god So they hate religion.
I also do not believe in the tooth fairy, santa claus, unicorns, and pokemon... does that mean I hate all those too? How do you hate something you do not believe exists? Atheists know God/god exists. They know it because they set themselves up as gods by simply suggesting that God doesn't exists when they know that they don't know for sure that He doesn't. |
|
|
|
choose a faith is a person's choice. one can not impose the will of others. and if you have been born like that so it was a destiny. everyone has a way of life and destiny, respectively.
It is NOT a destiny. God leaves open a little part of every heart to accept Him or reject Him. Based on how a person feels about God, God controls the rest of the person's life. |
|
|
|
It is even disgusting to see how humans can be negligible
I see people all the time saying:
"What is faith in God and that God will save them"
"What we have to love the next"
"What we can not lie. Rob and kill for it is a sin"
But the people I see in these words speaking church are the same people who are giving the order to burn houses with people inside it
Are the same people who are rich, who use diamonds and gold that came from mines where hundreds of people die
are the same people who go it in the church dressed in luxurious fabrics of clothes, gold filled and diamonds all over body
all these items are from countries where war not just because of religion ... blame for some people who want to earn a lot of money at the expense of other people's blood
See the Vatican for example ... look how priests dress, where it leaves the gold?
Look how some bastards are leaders when they go to the Vatican ... or it seems that people are unscrupulous people who have many bodies over his shoulder, great dictators ... if cmportam as if they were saints and have the courage to go to the Vatican to pray , to pray?
pray for whom? murderous men pray for whom? men able to throw a bomb to annihilate a village made up of more than 600 people because oil want this in the village and go to the Vatican to pray for whom? God?
I think the religion you blind!
God looks at the heart of a person. Don't be drawn away from God by some things that other people do... some of whom have been drawn away from God for the sake of wealth. Don't let anything draw you away from God. Why not? Because He will judge us all according to the thing that we believe, INDIVIDUALLY. Continue to believe in God. After all, you are really the only person you are responsible for regarding your faith in God. |
|
|
|
Stephen Hawking is on board with a $100 million project to find intelligent life in outer space via a tiny armada of laser-propelled spacecrafts.
The Breakthrough Starshot Project was unveiled Tuesday on the 102nd floor of One World Observatory, where Hawking was joined by Russian billionaire Yuri Milner in announcing the ambitious plan.
“The limit that confronts us now is the great void between us and the stars but now we can transcend it,” said Hawking. SourceHawking has to get his money somewhere. Keep the science fiction alive in the hearts and minds of people so that they keep on pouring money into Hawking's pocket. |
|
|
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
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.. No, atheism is not the worst thing on earth. It is, however, one of the stupidest, least well thought out things. One thing that is worse is the acknowledgement of God, combined with the formal attempt to fight Him. Not only is this worse, but it has to be even more stupid than atheism. Atheism will send its believer to Hell by default. Fighting God will sent its warriors to Hell by direct action of God. Anybody has a chance to turn and acknowledge God and the salvation that He offers. But both the atheists and the anti-God warriors are stupid enough that they probably won't turn. If they weren't so stupid, they wouldn't be atheists, or anti-God warriors in the first place. Some of you anti-God jokers need gingko biloba. |
|
|
|
Elegant Math and Failed Theoryhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRFCNCMANwsPhysicist Wal Thornhill continues his discussion of some of the foundational theories of modern physics and cosmology. As Thornhill explains, the aesthetics of mathematical theories may often have little or no relationship to physical reality. image Definitely not! Science breeds on evidence and scientific inquiry using the scientific method to validate a claim or theory. Religion deals with absolutes, without any mechanism of scrutinizing the validity of certain claims.
Science in and of itself is not a religion. However, many scientists and the media and others treat some of the unknown things of science (the theory) as though it were reality. They essentially have created a religion for themselves, out of science. And they often proclaim the unknown as fact to those who don't have the ability to discern, and make believers of them as well. Science is definitely religion in some aspects of it. The interesting thing about all this is that virtually all the religions out there, along with many of the philosophies that are on the edge of being religions, have lots of truth in them. Are we, then, to call these religions science? After all, when you have fact and truth, and call it science, why not have fiction like science does and call it science as well? No. Can you link to a defintion of "science" that includes "necessary belief in supernatural"?. I didn't think so. Not that there isn't any definition. Since science has proven that God exists, and since everything in science comes from God, the whole definition of science includes the supernatural. Why? Because nobody can make anything from scratch, out of absolutely nothing at all (even though we can manipulate many things that exist). So everything is supernatural, especially nature. No. The words themselves make that clear. "Nature" consists of "natural" things, not "supernatural" things. You like posting "dictionary.com" definitions, so here's a link for you: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/supernatural?s=tThat is true. But that is not what I said. The fact that nature exists is supernatural. Why? Because nobody can make nature exist. Everyone uses parts of nature, but nobody can make nature exist. Nature is not supernatural in itself. But the fact that nature exists at all is supernatural. You're using "supernatural" to mean something other than what it does. "Supernatural" means "above nature". By definition nature can not be "supernatural". Just because English is a second language for you, doesn't mean you have a very poor knowledge of it. You have shown that you understand it quite well. Now slow down a little when you read it. Look above to what I posted last. I posted, "Nature is not supernatural in itself." What does that mean? Doesn't it mean that nature is not supernatural? You said, "By definition nature can not be 'supernatural'." Aren't we both expressing virtually the same thing? What are we expressing? We both are expressing that "NATURE IS NOT SUPERNATURAL."Okay. Now that we have that out of the way, look at the other little thing that I posted, which you ignored. That little thing is, "But the fact that nature exists at all is supernatural." Nature isn't supernatural. Its existence is. What does this mean? It means that the natural nature came into existence through supernatural means. It doesn't mean that nature is supernatural. It means that the process whereby nature came into existence is supernatural. How do we know this? Because we see nothing in nature that could have caused nature to come into existence. If there were a natural method whereby nature came into being, we would see it. Even the silly Big Bang idea borders on the supernatural. You wrote: "the whole definition of science includes the supernatural." This means you think that some of science is supernatural? Yet the defintion at dictionary.com (your favourite online resource) defines science as a study of nature and natural things. Nature and natural things cannot also be supernatural. QED. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/science?s=tScience a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge. 7. skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency. So far, since we don't have any clue except guesses as to where nature came from... ... and since the one thing that we have ascertained is that nature itself doesn't have any source for where it came from... ... the knowledge, as of facts or principles found through systematic study is that the nature came about via supernatural means. Even Spock said, in Star Trek 2009, "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." The existence of nature and the universe was caused by supernatural means, and science essentially proves it... at least until science disproves it. |
|
|
|
The Turkish president is a nice guy. See? I insulted him as well.   |
|
|
|
This is such extraordinarily wonderful news. As machines do more work for us, more of us can go on welfare. We will have more time. The population will increase. And it won't matter because machines will figure out a way whereby we can all fit on the planet. Think of all the recreation time you will have. The only people who won't benefit by leisure time are the grocery store workers. Stocking shelves is such complex work, that it will be a long time before they can make robots that will be able to do it. Finally, grocery workers will be paid what they are worth. |
|
|
|
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=tEDIT: 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. Did you even read your link? 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
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. Dictatorial? No. I'm pointing out that your definition is not supported by your link. 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: 6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice. 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. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Elegant Math and Failed Theoryhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRFCNCMANwsPhysicist Wal Thornhill continues his discussion of some of the foundational theories of modern physics and cosmology. As Thornhill explains, the aesthetics of mathematical theories may often have little or no relationship to physical reality. image Definitely not! Science breeds on evidence and scientific inquiry using the scientific method to validate a claim or theory. Religion deals with absolutes, without any mechanism of scrutinizing the validity of certain claims.
Science in and of itself is not a religion. However, many scientists and the media and others treat some of the unknown things of science (the theory) as though it were reality. They essentially have created a religion for themselves, out of science. And they often proclaim the unknown as fact to those who don't have the ability to discern, and make believers of them as well. Science is definitely religion in some aspects of it. The interesting thing about all this is that virtually all the religions out there, along with many of the philosophies that are on the edge of being religions, have lots of truth in them. Are we, then, to call these religions science? After all, when you have fact and truth, and call it science, why not have fiction like science does and call it science as well? No. Can you link to a defintion of "science" that includes "necessary belief in supernatural"?. I didn't think so. Not that there isn't any definition. Since science has proven that God exists, and since everything in science comes from God, the whole definition of science includes the supernatural. Why? Because nobody can make anything from scratch, out of absolutely nothing at all (even though we can manipulate many things that exist). So everything is supernatural, especially nature. No. The words themselves make that clear. "Nature" consists of "natural" things, not "supernatural" things. You like posting "dictionary.com" definitions, so here's a link for you: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/supernatural?s=tThat is true. But that is not what I said. The fact that nature exists is supernatural. Why? Because nobody can make nature exist. Everyone uses parts of nature, but nobody can make nature exist. Nature is not supernatural in itself. But the fact that nature exists at all is supernatural. You're using "supernatural" to mean something other than what it does. "Supernatural" means "above nature". By definition nature can not be "supernatural". Just because English is a second language for you, doesn't mean you have a very poor knowledge of it. You have shown that you understand it quite well. Now slow down a little when you read it. Look above to what I posted last. I posted, "Nature is not supernatural in itself." What does that mean? Doesn't it mean that nature is not supernatural? You said, "By definition nature can not be 'supernatural'." Aren't we both expressing virtually the same thing? What are we expressing? We both are expressing that "NATURE IS NOT SUPERNATURAL."Okay. Now that we have that out of the way, look at the other little thing that I posted, which you ignored. That little thing is, "But the fact that nature exists at all is supernatural." Nature isn't supernatural. Its existence is. What does this mean? It means that the natural nature came into existence through supernatural means. It doesn't mean that nature is supernatural. It means that the process whereby nature came into existence is supernatural. How do we know this? Because we see nothing in nature that could have caused nature to come into existence. If there were a natural method whereby nature came into being, we would see it. Even the silly Big Bang idea borders on the supernatural. |
|
|
|
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=tEDIT: 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. Did you even read your link? 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
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. Dictatorial? No. I'm pointing out that your definition is not supported by your link. 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: 6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice. 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. |
|
|
|
Elegant Math and Failed Theoryhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRFCNCMANwsPhysicist Wal Thornhill continues his discussion of some of the foundational theories of modern physics and cosmology. As Thornhill explains, the aesthetics of mathematical theories may often have little or no relationship to physical reality.  Definitely not! Science breeds on evidence and scientific inquiry using the scientific method to validate a claim or theory. Religion deals with absolutes, without any mechanism of scrutinizing the validity of certain claims.
Science in and of itself is not a religion. However, many scientists and the media and others treat some of the unknown things of science (the theory) as though it were reality. They essentially have created a religion for themselves, out of science. And they often proclaim the unknown as fact to those who don't have the ability to discern, and make believers of them as well. Science is definitely religion in some aspects of it. The interesting thing about all this is that virtually all the religions out there, along with many of the philosophies that are on the edge of being religions, have lots of truth in them. Are we, then, to call these religions science? After all, when you have fact and truth, and call it science, why not have fiction like science does and call it science as well? No. Can you link to a defintion of "science" that includes "necessary belief in supernatural"?. I didn't think so. Not that there isn't any definition. Since science has proven that God exists, and since everything in science comes from God, the whole definition of science includes the supernatural. Why? Because nobody can make anything from scratch, out of absolutely nothing at all (even though we can manipulate many things that exist). So everything is supernatural, especially nature. No. The words themselves make that clear. "Nature" consists of "natural" things, not "supernatural" things. You like posting "dictionary.com" definitions, so here's a link for you: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/supernatural?s=tThat is true. But that is not what I said. The fact that nature exists is supernatural. Why? Because nobody can make nature exist. Everyone uses parts of nature, but nobody can make nature exist. Nature is not supernatural in itself. But the fact that nature exists at all is supernatural. |
|
|
|
I would just ultimately think it has something to do with the fact that they simply live based on physical proof. They need evidence to believe in something, and religion simply doesn't have that. It's all based in faith and whether or not you believe the details of that religion. For the most part though, I don't think that because somebody believes in a religion that this means atheists should despise them. Despise religion, not the person. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Religion is not all based on faith. All religions understand that mankind and the earth exist, and are based on these factual understandings, at least somewhat. Religion is not blind faith. Religion simply tries to do the same things that science is trying to do... find answers. Religion does it differently. Anybody who things that science will eventually find all the answers has a religion going for himself. Nobody knows that science can find all the answers. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
