Why so many atheists, like Moloch, are constantly whining and acting so fearfully? It's like they are scared all the time  On the other hand, it is the hardcore Christians, who are acting fearfully. For example, many of my friends have asked me to convert to Christianity. Their argument is that if I don't accept Jesus as my savior, then I will face the eternal hell-fire after my death. Christianity is a religion which is based on blackmail and fear. Everyone has fear of the unknown. Anyone who thinks that he knows the future finds out differently sooner or later. The fear comes when people suddenly run into trouble because the future doesn't play out the way their visualization of it suggested it should.  |
|
|
|
A religion must include a god and a place of worship. Science has neither. If you believe in science you are an athiest. Scientology isnt a religion either, it is more of a cult
But the definition of "religion" doesn't say that a god is a requirement of religion. However, the activities and thinking of mankind in his presumptuousness, suggests that mankind makes himself out as though he were a god. So, religion always has a god, even though the definition doesn't require it. |
|
|
|
By Spencer's own logic, it is impossible that everything has a cause since then there could be no first cause. No, that is not his logic at all; you obviously did not read the text.  Just because a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible! If anything is thinkable, then it is thinkable that things do not need to come from somewhere. You can't have it both ways - either you can use logical inference or you can't. If you aren't using logical inference then anything is thinkable. There are only two points that we know about this: 1. There are some things that we haven't determined if they have come form somewhere or not; 2. There are some things that we know have come from somewhere. We haven't found anything that we know just existed, all by itself, without having been caused by something else. In fact, there are so many thing that we DO know have been caused by something else, that it is unlikely that the things we don't know about, simply, spontaneously existed. The idea of something being outside of the universe is something we cannot comprehend. Everything is part of the universe or else it does not exist... at least that is what our understanding is. Why is our understanding like this? Because we are completely part of our universe. However, because cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy show that the universe had a beginning, there must have been something outside the universe, and before it, to cause the beginning. Whatever it was that caused the universe, is something that would have to be outside of universal laws. If it weren't, it would simply have been part of the universe. The only way for the universe to have caused itself would be through some form of spontaneous, uncaused action. We have no evidence of spontaneity happening anywhere. There should be at least some dregs of spontaneity around if there ever was such a thing. We haven't found any. The whole thing boils down, again, to two points. There are tons and loads of cause and effect actions that have taken and are taking place, that we know about. There are some things that we don't know about. A third thing is that, although we can imagine and guess about spontaneous activity, we haven't been able to find any for sure. |
|
|
|
I should be loved totally by all those atheists that I show the straight and narrow to. After all, they are seekers of truth, and I show them some of the greatest and best truth.  But, alas, they don't love me. In fact, it seems just the opposite.  |
|
|
|
If our earth is flat then what about all of the other spherical planets we can see with our telescopes?
Spherical planets? Those are just paintings on the inside of the dome.  |
|
|
|
The belief that science is not a religion, in the face of it being proven to be a religion, is a religion itself. From a point of view of ignorant religious obscurantists, may be so. In reality, there is nothing in common between science and religion. They are just two different worlds based on completely different principles. Wrong! In a formal religion, the God that science has proven to exist, makes promises to people. If the people want to believe Him, they must take Him on faith. In science theory (which is part of science) some facts that are proven to exist, come together in a new way with a promise of something else that has not been proven yet. If scientists believe the theory to be fact, they do so on faith, because it hasn't been proven yet. So, faith is the foundation in both religion and science, being only less firm than the foundation of facts of both religion and science. Blah blah blah. Tell your fairy tails to retard kids who have no brains and enter your totalitarian religions cult. So, you a believer in science can't find a logical answer, yet you condemn the logic. You have a great religion for yourself, there. |
|
|
|
The belief that science is not a religion, in the face of it being proven to be a religion, is a religion itself. From a point of view of ignorant religious obscurantists, may be so. In reality, there is nothing in common between science and religion. They are just two different worlds based on completely different principles. Wrong! In a formal religion, the God that science has proven to exist, makes promises to people. If the people want to believe Him, they must take Him on faith. In science theory (which is part of science) some facts that are proven to exist, come together in a new way with a promise of something else that has not been proven yet. If scientists believe the theory to be fact, they do so on faith, because it hasn't been proven yet. So, faith is the foundation in both religion and science, being only less firm than the foundation of facts of both religion and science. |
|
|
|
The belief that science is not a religion, in the face of it being proven to be a religion, is a religion itself. |
|
|
|
Not going to happen. It should but won't. If it was going to happen it would have started with many others before her. Cheney, rumsfeld, bush, wolfowitz, kissinger, maybe most other american presidents and advisers too. But maybe the FBI investigation will get her.
Things are not going to be the same forever. The federal debt is rapidly approaching the $20 trillion mark, and if Hitlery becomes the next president, then we can expect it to rise to $50 trillion by 2020. Sooner or later, the Americans will lose their dominance, and they will be forced to end their interventions in various third world nations. Isn't this their ultimate goal? It's not that simple. First, it isn't the 50T mark that signals any sord of end of dominance for America. For example, if most other nations' debt has risen faster and higher, we at 50T may be a shining star. Second, the entire world is at various rates, becoming modernized. Lots of places are moving out of third world, perhaps the exceptions being the hard core muslim nations. We're all in favor of the entire world becoming more prosperous, that's a different thing than "America losing dominance." Other places are moving forward to become one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1316268.msg14538279#msg14538279The American dominance started when the chewing gun hit the beach of Normandy, then kept growing when people started to cross a wall in Berlin hidden under car seats. I don't believe a military dominance is a winning tactic. The chewing gum strategy had a deeper impact. We need to invest in that EMdrive now and start building Burger Kings all over the galaxy and beyond, using the meat found locally. America means to have a vision not being afraid of dreaming big, one Double Alpha Centauri Mermaid Meat Whopper at a time... If by some statisical fluke 21 of them were perfect but the 22nd was the wrong isomer, then those burgers would look good and taste good but would not keep you alive. And there should be higher and better uses for Alpha Centauri Mermaids, anyway.Yes. That's why we won't eat those Alpha Centauri Mermaids with purple tongue s. Technological evolution should be represented as a ripple produced in the water when you drop that rock. The ripple is predicting that, by the time we can travel cheaply across the galaxy, everything needed for a human to survive the trip will be in a container no bigger than a 3rd generation ipod. Believe in the mermaid burger.  Can you fly an iPhone to the stars?
In an attempt to leapfrog the planets and vault into the interstellar age, a bevy of scientists and other luminaries from Silicon Valley and beyond, led by Yuri Milner, a Russian philanthropist and Internet entrepreneur, announced a plan on Tuesday to send a fleet of robot spacecraft no bigger than iPhones to Alpha Centauri, the nearest star system, 4.37 light-years away. Read more at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/science/alpha-centauri-breakthrough-starshot-yuri-milner-stephen-hawking.html?_r=2.See, also, https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/194927-2016-04-12-so-how-exactly-do-we-get-to-alpha-centauri.htm and http://www.popsci.com/how-do-we-get-to-alpha-centauri. |
|
|
|
Religion and science are two different fields of study that occasionally come into conflict when either forgets itself.
Religion is a spiritual pursuit of Truth.
Science is an intellectual pursuit of truth.
Religion is strongest when it doesn't attempt to touch the facts of the universe and maintains its pursuit of the Divine.
Science looks at the universe through conjecture and refutation - theory and experiment. When it shows that the universe is several billion years old, it is true. When it shows that evolution produced life on Earth over the course of millions of years, it is true.
I agree -- the subjects are two completely different and unrelated domains. We don't use maths to prove art, so why use science to prove god? You can find many people who use math to design their art. Science has many meanings. Some women call their range or their washer and dryer science. Science in the pure sense is not religion. Science in the theoretical sense can be religion if the scientists believe it as truth when they don't know that it is truth. |
|
|
|
There are no other religions "like" Christianity
1) There is no such thing as "Christianity"... all Christians believe different things... Catholics don't believe in hell... Protestants do... Catholics believe a different 10-commandments than protestants... Mormons believe there are 4 levels of heaven... protestants and catholics believe there is only 1 level of heaven Mormons believe Jesus was a space-alien from Kolob, who had physical sex with "the virgin" Mary B) There are plenty of religions like Christianity... basically, all of them (except Hindu)... Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Muslim... all basically the same thing with minor changes in dogma... all 4 of these cults believe the bible is a sacred religious text (they only interpret it differently) Odd, I never realised Mormons are Christian. Edit: I'm serious, I really did think they had a different god. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/morm?lang=eng. |
|
|
|
Is there a law that says everything has to come from somewhere? What do you think? It is indisputably the conclusion of the philosophical materialism (physicalism) that is so popular with atheists. After all, if matter is not the cause, then what ELSE could be the cause?In ANY experiment, you are trying to determine the true source (cause) of the observed results; that is certainly a law of science! So what about the act of observation itself? That also has a source! Therefore it pays to "know thyself", just as is taught by various ones (e.g. Socrates). I'm not sure what to think -- I was asking you. Do you think that everything has to come from somewhere -- yes or no? Why are you unsure? I already gave you multiple proofs that causality is a scientific law (bolded). Now what do you think about these proofs? You don't realize that these questions were already answered by Herbert Spencer. All of science rests upon the principle that everything has a cause, and all experiments are conducted in an effort to learn more about the true cause (source). I strongly encourage you to read Spencer's First Principles. By Spencer's own logic, it is impossible that everything has a cause since then there could be no first cause. The fact of wide-spread to universal entropy says that there had to be a beginning. If there weren't any beginning, entropy would have caused a space/time equilibrium long ago, and no complexity would exist at all. Since there was a beginning, there was a beginning of cause and effect. The beginning of cause and effect was the Great First Cause. It Itself may or may not have had a cause of its own. But if it did, that kind of a cause would have been so far beyond the area where mankind can think that we wouldn't understand it at all. Why not? Consider a First Cause that is so great that It could move countless subatomic particles and waves to produce the universe of today through thousands of years of cause and effect activity. Such a thing is simply mind boggling, way beyond the mind of man. |
|
|
|
BADECKER:For some strange reason, many people keep getting the idea that atheism is itself some sort of religion. Maybe it is because these people are so caught up in their own religious beliefs that they cannot imagine any person living without religion of some sort. Maybe it is due to some persistent misunderstanding of what atheism is. And maybe they just don't care that what they are saying really doesn't make any sense. Atheism is a disbelief, not a philosophy. My disbelief in the Tooth Fairy is not a philosophy of life - is it for anyone else? Furthermore, a philosophy of life is not necessarily a religion and it doesn't necessitate that a religious belief exists in the person with the philosophy. There are, after all, all sorts of secular philosophies of life, none of which are religions. Source: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/fl/Atheism-Myths-Is-Atheism-a-Religion.htm Caught up in religion? That's exactly what the adamant atheist is. If a person never thought about it, he might be an atheist without having a religion of atheism. When there is science that proves God - or even if it doesn't, it comes very close - atheistic believers in science can't be atheists and not have a religion. Perhaps if there wasn't any evidence whatsoever for God, or if there happened to be only evidence that suggested God didn't exist, then atheism might not be a religion. Just because someone says, "I don't have a religion, I don't have a religion, I don't have a religion, I don't have a religion, I don't have a religion... ," doesn't mean he knows what he is talking about, or that he isn't a liar. Check the dictionary definition of "religion" at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t. All atheism is, is a bunch of dreamers who want something so badly that they are unwilling to even recognize that it might be some other way. That in itself is part of what a religion can be and very often is. By the evidence, atheism is a religion. |
|
|
|
What exactly did you post this in relation to? Without context it could mean anything. My posts are the context; I am leading this discussion to more fruitful ground, but first I need to clear up some things: Back it up just a second, let me make sure I understand what you're saying -- you just post stuff apropos of nothing in particular, just stuff you find interesting? Yes, it's true. I post interesting things. The subject is life, GOD, rebirth. I am discussing with OP and others. My posts in this thread are the context. You have to read my posts to see the context. If you don't read my posts, you will think there is no context. All of my posts are relevant, this quote by Eliot happens to be broad and ambiguous. If you fail to think about what I post then you will find it challenging to ask any fruitful questions. I refuse to accept OP's authority that awareness ends at death; he could just as easily say that it ends when you fall asleep! I find it puzzling that atheists like OP are stating that we did not exist; why can't they just ask the question "where did we come from?" like the rest of us?  Is there a law that says everything has to come from somewhere? It is called cause and effect, and it is exemplified in Newton's 3rd Law. |
|
|
|
9/11 was the game plan made by former president George Bush in his hate towards Muslim community and Muslim countries all over the world.on the basis of that 9/11 event America attacked many Muslim countries,about 2.5 million people died from that day and they all were innocent,which were pushed to that war according to the game plan.
Bush was a damn puppet and he just played written scenary We are all puppets in life. We are controlled by who knows what. And it is our need for security that causes us to be the way we are. If we weren't stuck in our comfort zone, we wouldn't need a president or a government. We would go out and do whatever we wanted. Presidents and actors are the same. The only slight differences is that they have stretched their comfort zone into areas that most of us haven't. Be wise about the way you stretch you comfort zone out. |
|
|
|
What exactly did you post this in relation to? Without context it could mean anything. My posts are the context; I am leading this discussion to more fruitful ground, but first I need to clear up some things: Back it up just a second, let me make sure I understand what you're saying -- you just post stuff apropos of nothing in particular, just stuff you find interesting? Yes, it's true. I post interesting things. The subject is life, GOD, rebirth. I am discussing with OP and others. My posts in this thread are the context. You have to read my posts to see the context. If you don't read my posts, you will think there is no context. All of my posts are relevant, this quote by Eliot happens to be broad and ambiguous. If you fail to think about what I post then you will find it challenging to ask any fruitful questions. I refuse to accept OP's authority that awareness ends at death; he could just as easily say that it ends when you fall asleep! I find it puzzling that atheists like OP are stating that we did not exist; why can't they just ask the question "where did we come from?" like the rest of us? Actually, it is quite easy to understand. We all seem to have a handle on the life we live. Our experience keeps us thinking that things will go on into the future as they have in the past. Few of us realize that we don't know anything at all about our future. A sudden car accident proves this out. This is why we have religion. Religion allows us a way to combine the fact that we know so extremely little, with the security we need to operate effectively in life. Atheism is simply another form of religion, one which allows a person with the mind-set of an atheist to live life with a semblance of security. The fact that the atheist says or thinks that atheism isn't a religion, shows a blind spot in his mind, the likes of which all people of all religions have. We can all find religions that seem stupid to us. We might respect the people of those other religions. But we see aspects of stupidity in them that the believers of those religions don't see. It's the same with the atheist. He sees aspects of other religions that he believes are stupid. And he doesn't see that he is doing this in religion-like fashion. The atheist wants to be strong. He wants to be secure in life without religion. So, he has set himself to believe that his atheism is not a religion. But, because he is human, he must have religion just like all the other people. He has only created for himself a religion of non-religion in atheism. |
|
|
|
Science can't be a religion
Almost every scientist belongs to a religion if we don't count atheists. Anyway atheism is also a religion that against to religions
No, it's not. Science is not meant to be a religion. Yet the fact that scientists would accept as fact, much of science theory which has not been proven to be fact, starts to bring science into the realm of religion. Scientists have built up all kinds of expressed structure about how things work, structure that is not known to be factual. They believe much of it. They attach it to the factual science. They have turned science into a religion, and made themselves the high priests of that religion. The theoretical things are written up right along side of the factual things in books. They are taught in classrooms around the world as truth when they are not necessarily known to be truth. For example. Two theories that are not known to be fact are Big Bang Theory and Black Hole Theory. Nobody knows that the Big Bang happened. Nobody knows what Black Holes really are. Basically, there are three Big Bang theories. Basically there are 4 kinds of Black Holes expressed by the various Black Hole Theories. The amazing thing is that none of the Black Holes expressed by Black Hole Theory could fit withing any of the universes expressed by any of the Big Bang Theory. The theories are not compatible. Yet, scientists just know in their hearts that the Big Bang really happened, and that Black Holes are what they say they are. And they believe it strongly, even though it all contradicts. Stand this up against the definition of "religion" to see that they have a religion going for themselves in their science. |
|
|
|
A big point of all this is that people are free. You have people in governments using their freedom by attempting to make money off people not in government. You have people not in government using their freedom by attempting to make money off anybody. Anyone can do the Panama Papers thing. He can do it personally by studying and joining together with one or more knowledgeable like minded people. Or he can use funds he already has to buy a setup for himself from companies like Mossack Fonseca. One of the best setups around is NOT offshore. It is right in the United States. It is based on a couple of basic tenets of freedom found in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution... freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. Any two people can get together and form a church. Because of the 1st Amendment (which is backed by basic English and American common law), a church has a wide range of freedoms that the government can't attack successfully... if the people know what they are doing. One of the biggest church freedoms is freedom from income taxes. If the church is run properly, it is excluded from the IRS altogether. If the people running the church know a little about common law, they can repel even the strongest IRS attacks against their church with ease. See http://www.theultimateinassetprotection.com/?ref=SWC for some basics about a sure way to do this. The amazing thing is that people have been trained into thinking that starting a church for protecting one's self or family from government operated racketeering is wrong. Government continually dumbs-down people in their training in school so that they are ripe for the picking. The various religions help to keep people ignorant of the financial protection available to them through a church. The simple, everyday religious leaders are honest enough in what they are doing. Yet, all but a few of them realize how powerful freedom of religion is in the States. So, they make the setting up of one's affairs as a church to look like it is a bad thing. From http://www.theultimateinassetprotection.com/taxlaw/: ... instead of asking the IRS’ permission to be a church (as you would with a 1023 application to obtain 501(c)(3) status), you declare the existence of your church under IRC 508(a). In other words, if your church becomes a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization, it isn't a church. It is a corporation or other entity. If it is a 508(c)(1)(A) organization, it can be a church, and is an "excepted" organization outside of IRS control. Someone has twisted the minds of the people in the local churches to make their church an exempt corporation under IRS scrutiny rather than an excepted organization completely outside of IRS control. Time for people to take up their freedom and form their own church so that they don't have to go offshore to protect their assets. |
|
|
|
Then ask those same atheists if they are telling the truth or only dreaming. Why? How does dreaming come in to the question of what someone thinks? I know religious prophets have dreams of gods, do you mean the same thing happens here? The idea isn't literal dreaming. The idea is a forced day dreaming, to make it seem reality. Science talks about cause and effect as though it is the basis for everything. A scientist is great only after he has mastered seeking the causes for any effects. Entropy suggests that complexity is waning. And, entropy seems to be universal as far as we can tell, even though there are flares of complexity now and again... flares which are culminations of combining of that which is even more complex. If God happens to NOT be proven by this, God is highly suggested. So, what kind of day dreaming is it that atheists use to get them selves to so adamantly resist any idea that God exists, while at the same time so emphatically accept the sciences of cause and effect, complex universe, and universal complexity. Everyone lies to himself one way or another. What strength of mind these atheists must have to lie to themselves in such a great way as to accept science, but resist the greatest thing science is showing them! Ah. Concealed abuse, again. I'd thought you'd changed but it seems not. No concealed abuse whatsoever. Atheists constantly abuse themselves by stupidly proclaiming their atheism, completely unconcealed, especially when they do it as adamantly as they do. They should be thanking me that I am showing them how stupid they are acting and look, so that they can either be quiet about it, or change to look at and accept the truth. But no. All they can do is claim that they are being abused. And then they go further to abuse themselves and cry about it some more. If you atheists can't seem to get out of your stupid cycle, why don't you seek help? Are you that far gone that you can't even do that? |
|
|
|
Religion is meant for the 'weak', and yet, atheist are equally as close-minded as religious people. Saying something unknown doesn't exist for sure is just as dumb as saying it does without any foundation. People who denied the existence of an american continent were equally as close-minded as those who believed the other extreme. Agnosticism allows to say 'I don't know' in order to build a bi-optional foundation. Let's find out without any bias, and let faith help those who need it. Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mAtjs-JAtEAtheism does not mean a person knows for certain there is no God Atheism is simply a rejection of any (or all) specific Gods... Christians say their God exists... I don't believe them... I'm an Atheist... same goes for Hindu, Muslim, etc... I don't believe any of them To compare it to a courtroom... Atheism would be finding the defense, "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" (you have not proven God exists)... which is different from "innocent" (God does not exist) Atheism is a statement about belief, and Agnostic is a statement about knowledge... the two are not mutually exclusive... (you can be an Agnostic Atheist, or a Gnostic Atheist... just like you can be a Gnostic or Agnostic Christian) Also, nobody knows for certain (everyone is an agnostic)... anyone who claims to know for certain is a liar or a fool "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities." -Wikipedia You might be right though  . At least I can see your point Rather than using a wiki, it's best to ask atheists what they believe: https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheismWHAT 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 or other sources.
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."
Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.
Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints. Then ask those same atheists if they are telling the truth or only dreaming. Why? How does dreaming come in to the question of what someone thinks? I know religious prophets have dreams of gods, do you mean the same thing happens here? The idea isn't literal dreaming. The idea is a forced day dreaming, to make it seem reality. Science talks about cause and effect as though it is the basis for everything. A scientist is great only after he has mastered seeking the causes for any effects. Entropy suggests that complexity is waning. And, entropy seems to be universal as far as we can tell, even though there are flares of complexity now and again... flares which are culminations of combining of that which is even more complex. If God happens to NOT be proven by this, God is highly suggested. So, what kind of day dreaming is it that atheists use to get them selves to so adamantly resist any idea that God exists, while at the same time so emphatically accept the sciences of cause and effect, complex universe, and universal complexity. Everyone lies to himself one way or another. What strength of mind these atheists must have to lie to themselves in such a great way as to accept science, but resist the greatest thing science is showing them! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
