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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. You avoided the question, so I'll try again: 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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
When you write "a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible" you're implying that things you support could exist, but humans cannot think of them. In the same way, just because you cannot think of a way in which this might happen, it doesn't mean that it can't happen. Actually, it is impossible for "something to come from nothing" (that's what you support), but this cannot be proven because "intuition is not proof; it is the opposite of proof. We do not analyze intuition to see a proof but by intuition we see something without a proof." Intuition is that thing that often leads us astray. Intuition in mathematics, for example, is often wrong. If you're relying on unfalsifiable intuition, you're going to be lead astray by your own personal preferences. If your analysis depends on things that we -- by definition -- cannot analyse, then your hypothesis in unfalsifiable and is not suitable for logical inference. So it is with the hypothesis of "something from nothing" which you support--it is not suitable for logical inference because it is not falsifiable and is also repugnant to the intuition. I don't support any particular notion. "Something from nothing" is simply a valid output of your previous statement that "a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible". I'm pointing out that the method you're using to analyse your ideas also supports the antithesis of your ideas. Once again -- any statement about the nature of the world that can cannot be falsified is not worth considering, and can contain contradictions within itself. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
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. I disagree. The principle that everything has a cause holds up all of science. You can't rationally think of qualia as having no cause and no origin. You say that you can think of things as having no origin. How so? When you write "a thing is literally unthinkable by us humans does not mean that it is impossible" you're implying that things you support could exist, but humans cannot think of them. In the same way, just because you cannot think of a way in which this might happen, it doesn't mean that it can't happen. 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.
OK, so you are saying that anything is thinkable, including self-causation (which is absurd) and "no causation" (which is unscientific), so therefore YOU are NOT using logical inference. Correct? If your analysis depends on things that we -- by definition -- cannot analyse, then your hypothesis in unfalsifiable and is not suitable for logical inference. |
|
|
|
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. You're using "supernatural" to mean something other than what it does. "Supernatural" means "above nature". By definition nature can not be "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. 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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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=t |
|
|
|
So I see 2 threads of why islam hates people or why people hate Islam. I dont see the point of such a mundane debate based on religion any debate for or against religion would be stupid. Either you are stupid to believe what a prophet / god / divine entity said or you are stupid enough to believe you can change the minds of the bleak minded people who follow such a prophet / god / divine entity.
But since its fun let me initiate my own brand of 'why do' topic.
WHY DO ATHEISTS (like me) HATE RELIGION ?
Seriously what has to happen in a person's life for them to seriously give up hope on the one true everlasting brand (of religion) which their ancestors have followed for generations.
Everyone has their own story even I have mine, so lets hear some of it.
i dont think atheists (im atheist) hate religion, i think they (like me) hate what religion do to people, like wars, dived families, abandon and things like that Simply another point that shows that atheism is a religion. How? Because atheists do all these evil things as well. Poor logic. If some A = C and some B = C and some C = D, it does not follow that any B = D. Take A as god believers, B as atheists, C as evil deeds and D as religion. Bro, you can't use login in an argument against an overly religious person or a muslim. You need top go lower, use their language. Let me try now.... Uga,uga oooga booga bogaa ugh I think BADecker is a smart person. He or she just has an intellectual blind spot when it comes to Christianity. Stand me up next to any other average person. What do you see? Some of these people are more intelligent that I. Some are less. Some are smarter; others are less smart. Some eat more; some eat less. But we all have the same DNA to within 99.9999%... even if the pronounced DNA isn't quite the same in all of us. We all need air to breathe. We all need water to drink. We all need food to eat. We all need clothing and shelter. We all have emotions. We all have religion. We are very similar. Some of the less sensitive among us don't recognize that we all have religion. It doesn't mean that their beliefs and activities in life aren't religious, or that those who understand that we are religious are more religious. It just means that the so-called irreligious people don't think about their religion in the same way as those who recognize that everyone is religious and has religion. not sure what your definition of religion is bud. But it sure as hell aint the same as mine. i dont believe in the the invisible sky daddy, talking snakes (and santa clause and the tooth fairy ftm), you know that sort of thing. im not religious .period You seem to be very religious in your non-religion religion. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=tDid 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. Dictatorial? No. I'm simply pointing out that your link doesn't support your view. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
So I see 2 threads of why islam hates people or why people hate Islam. I dont see the point of such a mundane debate based on religion any debate for or against religion would be stupid. Either you are stupid to believe what a prophet / god / divine entity said or you are stupid enough to believe you can change the minds of the bleak minded people who follow such a prophet / god / divine entity.
But since its fun let me initiate my own brand of 'why do' topic.
WHY DO ATHEISTS (like me) HATE RELIGION ?
Seriously what has to happen in a person's life for them to seriously give up hope on the one true everlasting brand (of religion) which their ancestors have followed for generations.
Everyone has their own story even I have mine, so lets hear some of it.
i dont think atheists (im atheist) hate religion, i think they (like me) hate what religion do to people, like wars, dived families, abandon and things like that Simply another point that shows that atheism is a religion. How? Because atheists do all these evil things as well. Poor logic. If some A = C and some B = C and some C = D, it does not follow that any B = D. Take A as god believers, B as atheists, C as evil deeds and D as religion. Bro, you can't use login in an argument against an overly religious person or a muslim. You need top go lower, use their language. Let me try now.... Uga,uga oooga booga bogaa ugh I think BADecker is a smart person. He or she just has an intellectual blind spot when it comes to Christianity. Stand me up next to any other average person. What do you see? Some of these people are more intelligent that I. Some are less. Some are smarter; others are less smart. Some eat more; some eat less. But we all have the same DNA to within 99.9999%... even if the pronounced DNA isn't quite the same in all of us. We all need air to breathe. We all need water to drink. We all need food to eat. We all need clothing and shelter. We all have emotions. We all have religion. We are very similar. Some of the less sensitive among us don't recognize that we all have religion. It doesn't mean that their beliefs and activities in life aren't religious, or that those who understand that we are religious are more religious. It just means that the so-called irreligious people don't think about their religion in the same way as those who recognize that everyone is religious and has religion. not sure what your definition of religion is bud. But it sure as hell aint the same as mine. i dont believe in the the invisible sky daddy, talking snakes (and santa clause and the tooth fairy ftm), you know that sort of thing. im not religious .period You seem to be very religious in your non-religion religion. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=tDid 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. |
|
|
|
You poor little fellow. You call that abusive? Most of it is pure, loving chiding, with the hopes of saving someone by showing him the error of his ways. Other of it is agreeing with someone where he shows his stupidity first. What's the matter? Can't take someone with a different opinion or better knowledge? They express better knowledge or a different opinion, and that hurts you, right? just because it is different, right? Don't you see that you are doing the same thing continuously? Haven't you figured out that, that is what a forum is for, at least to some extent? Now I suppose you will call this post of mine abusive. However... I can hardly believe you are that sensitive. Thanks for playing around. You asked me to pst a list of times you have called other forum members "retarded". I went to the trouble of posting it for you. What's the problem? You asked me to ask you. No, I didn't. That is a lie. How much extra time in Hell did that lie just buy you? See? That's the neat thing. I don't believe that I lied. If you haven't lied then you've simply avoided checking your previous statements. You'd only do this if you thought you might be wrong, so it's still a lie. But if I made a mistake, or if I misunderstood, and in my mistakenness or misunderstanding really did lie, it is all forgiven because I believe in Jesus salvation.
When exactly do I have to ask for forgiveness? Sometime before I die, right -- can I just do it now, and get it over and done with. Or do I have to do it immediately before I die? |
|
|
|
You poor little fellow. You call that abusive? Most of it is pure, loving chiding, with the hopes of saving someone by showing him the error of his ways. Other of it is agreeing with someone where he shows his stupidity first. What's the matter? Can't take someone with a different opinion or better knowledge? They express better knowledge or a different opinion, and that hurts you, right? just because it is different, right? Don't you see that you are doing the same thing continuously? Haven't you figured out that, that is what a forum is for, at least to some extent? Now I suppose you will call this post of mine abusive. However... I can hardly believe you are that sensitive. Thanks for playing around. You asked me to pst a list of times you have called other forum members "retarded". I went to the trouble of posting it for you. What's the problem? You asked me to ask you. No, I didn't. That is a lie. How much extra time in Hell did that lie just buy you? |
|
|
|
You poor little fellow. You call that abusive? Most of it is pure, loving chiding, with the hopes of saving someone by showing him the error of his ways. Other of it is agreeing with someone where he shows his stupidity first. What's the matter? Can't take someone with a different opinion or better knowledge? They express better knowledge or a different opinion, and that hurts you, right? just because it is different, right? Don't you see that you are doing the same thing continuously? Haven't you figured out that, that is what a forum is for, at least to some extent? Now I suppose you will call this post of mine abusive. However... I can hardly believe you are that sensitive. Thanks for playing around. You asked me to pst a list of times you have called other forum members "retarded". I went to the trouble of posting it for you. What's the problem? |
|
|
|
Atheists are not as bad as rapist. They do not violate your free will.
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 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. 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. 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? Either you trust and use science and/or statistics, or you don't. There is no in between. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
