Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[BADecker]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg50483476#msg50483476
^^^ And for your peanut brain, all I have been saying all along is that a science theory is something that is not known to be true. That's why it is a theory and not a law.

A science theory might absolutely be right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc. The reason it is a theory is that nobody KNOWS that it is "right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc." There is reason to think that it might not be "right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc."

A law is simply something that is so extremely substantiated that it is right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc. This doesn't necessarily mean that a law can never be refuted by bringing to light some fundamental way in which the whole understanding about the law is wrong.

Why don't you read what I have been saying rather than attempting to put words into my mouth? Oh that's right! Your main reason for being here is to maintain that which is the standard, even if it is actually wrong.

So, I thank you. Buy twisting things around you show that you don't have a straight-forward answer for them. This indicates that you and standard science don't know much of anything. Now thank me for acknowledging that you are important enough that you can stand for standard science.

All you are showing is that your understanding of science is a religion. So, it's easy to understand why you would hate religion. You can't get away from it, and yours is kinda false.

''that a science theory is something that is not known to be true. That's why it is a theory and not a law.'' And again, that's simply wrong, where are you getting your definitions from? Read the definition of scientific theory vs law, nowhere it mentions that a law is true and a scientific theory is not, NOWHERE.

''A law is simply something that is so extremely substantiated that it is right, true, real'' No it's not, again you are simply making up definitions here.
The definition is: ''The laws of science, also called scientific laws or scientific principles, are statements that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.''
Scientific theory: ''A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.''

The word "theory" shows that a science theory might not be true. The term "science theory" self-defines. The only KNOWN facts about a science theory are:
1. Some or all of the parts of the ST may be known to be factual, individually, or when combined in ways other than the way stated in the particular ST;
2. The ST is know to factually be a ST;
3. The "object" that the ST is trying to "prove" is known to not be known to be factual in every circumstance.
Your definition of a ST, above, doesn't get into it deep enough to express it nearly completely. Read my explanation, again to see that we are not disagreeing about a ST. You simply are not describing it entirely.

As for a science law, all it is, is an observation that is so prevalent in the way that it appears to act or exist, that it is deemed to be absolutely certain the way it is described. This doesn't mean that all the observations are absolutely correct observations. Millions of people can make the same mistake in their observance of a SL. So, we are both right if we say that a SL might be wrong.

But a ST is absolutely known to not be known to be factual, even though it appears to act factually correct in many cases.

The key words in the definitions are the words "law" and "theory."

When someone thinks that something that is not known to be factual is factual, he is starting a religion for himself. This means that all people are religious beings, because none of us know the fact about everything. That's why atheists hate religion if they do... because they don't KNOW that God doesn't exist. This makes their atheism a religion. They hate not knowing.

[1713544613]

1713544613

[1713544613]

1713544613

[1713544613]

1713544613

[Astargath]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg50483476#msg50483476
^^^ And for your peanut brain, all I have been saying all along is that a science theory is something that is not known to be true. That's why it is a theory and not a law.

A science theory might absolutely be right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc. The reason it is a theory is that nobody KNOWS that it is "right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc." There is reason to think that it might not be "right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc."

A law is simply something that is so extremely substantiated that it is right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc. This doesn't necessarily mean that a law can never be refuted by bringing to light some fundamental way in which the whole understanding about the law is wrong.

Why don't you read what I have been saying rather than attempting to put words into my mouth? Oh that's right! Your main reason for being here is to maintain that which is the standard, even if it is actually wrong.

So, I thank you. Buy twisting things around you show that you don't have a straight-forward answer for them. This indicates that you and standard science don't know much of anything. Now thank me for acknowledging that you are important enough that you can stand for standard science.

All you are showing is that your understanding of science is a religion. So, it's easy to understand why you would hate religion. You can't get away from it, and yours is kinda false.

''that a science theory is something that is not known to be true. That's why it is a theory and not a law.'' And again, that's simply wrong, where are you getting your definitions from? Read the definition of scientific theory vs law, nowhere it mentions that a law is true and a scientific theory is not, NOWHERE.

''A law is simply something that is so extremely substantiated that it is right, true, real'' No it's not, again you are simply making up definitions here.
The definition is: ''The laws of science, also called scientific laws or scientific principles, are statements that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.''
Scientific theory: ''A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.''

The word "theory" shows that a science theory might not be true. The term "science theory" self-defines. The only KNOWN facts about a science theory are:
1. Some or all of the parts of the ST may be known to be factual, individually, or when combined in ways other than the way stated in the particular ST;
2. The ST is know to factually be a ST;
3. The "object" that the ST is trying to "prove" is known to not be known to be factual in every circumstance.
Your definition of a ST, above, doesn't get into it deep enough to express it nearly completely. Read my explanation, again to see that we are not disagreeing about a ST. You simply are not describing it entirely.

As for a science law, all it is, is an observation that is so prevalent in the way that it appears to act or exist, that it is deemed to be absolutely certain the way it is described. This doesn't mean that all the observations are absolutely correct observations. Millions of people can make the same mistake in their observance of a SL. So, we are both right if we say that a SL might be wrong.

But a ST is absolutely known to not be known to be factual, even though it appears to act factually correct in many cases.

The key words in the definitions are the words "law" and "theory."

When someone thinks that something that is not known to be factual is factual, he is starting a religion for himself. This means that all people are religious beings, because none of us know the fact about everything. That's why atheists hate religion if they do... because they don't KNOW that God doesn't exist. This makes their atheism a religion. They hate not knowing.

''So, we are both right if we say that a SL might be wrong.''

''Haven't you seen the term "law of gravity?" But you haven't seen the term "law of evolution," right? What does this show us? It shows that gravity is known to be real''

But you said that laws are always true, in fact you used that as an argument to ''prove'' why gravity is real and why evolution is not, simply because there is a law of gravity you implied that, that's what makes it true but now you are saying that a law might be wrong so how do you know gravity is true then?

[BADecker]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg50483476#msg50483476
^^^ And for your peanut brain, all I have been saying all along is that a science theory is something that is not known to be true. That's why it is a theory and not a law.

A science theory might absolutely be right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc. The reason it is a theory is that nobody KNOWS that it is "right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc." There is reason to think that it might not be "right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc."

A law is simply something that is so extremely substantiated that it is right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc. This doesn't necessarily mean that a law can never be refuted by bringing to light some fundamental way in which the whole understanding about the law is wrong.

Why don't you read what I have been saying rather than attempting to put words into my mouth? Oh that's right! Your main reason for being here is to maintain that which is the standard, even if it is actually wrong.

So, I thank you. Buy twisting things around you show that you don't have a straight-forward answer for them. This indicates that you and standard science don't know much of anything. Now thank me for acknowledging that you are important enough that you can stand for standard science.

All you are showing is that your understanding of science is a religion. So, it's easy to understand why you would hate religion. You can't get away from it, and yours is kinda false.

''that a science theory is something that is not known to be true. That's why it is a theory and not a law.'' And again, that's simply wrong, where are you getting your definitions from? Read the definition of scientific theory vs law, nowhere it mentions that a law is true and a scientific theory is not, NOWHERE.

''A law is simply something that is so extremely substantiated that it is right, true, real'' No it's not, again you are simply making up definitions here.
The definition is: ''The laws of science, also called scientific laws or scientific principles, are statements that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.''
Scientific theory: ''A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.''

The word "theory" shows that a science theory might not be true. The term "science theory" self-defines. The only KNOWN facts about a science theory are:
1. Some or all of the parts of the ST may be known to be factual, individually, or when combined in ways other than the way stated in the particular ST;
2. The ST is know to factually be a ST;
3. The "object" that the ST is trying to "prove" is known to not be known to be factual in every circumstance.
Your definition of a ST, above, doesn't get into it deep enough to express it nearly completely. Read my explanation, again to see that we are not disagreeing about a ST. You simply are not describing it entirely.

As for a science law, all it is, is an observation that is so prevalent in the way that it appears to act or exist, that it is deemed to be absolutely certain the way it is described. This doesn't mean that all the observations are absolutely correct observations. Millions of people can make the same mistake in their observance of a SL. So, we are both right if we say that a SL might be wrong.

But a ST is absolutely known to not be known to be factual, even though it appears to act factually correct in many cases.

The key words in the definitions are the words "law" and "theory."

When someone thinks that something that is not known to be factual is factual, he is starting a religion for himself. This means that all people are religious beings, because none of us know the fact about everything. That's why atheists hate religion if they do... because they don't KNOW that God doesn't exist. This makes their atheism a religion. They hate not knowing.

''So, we are both right if we say that a SL might be wrong.''

''Haven't you seen the term "law of gravity?" But you haven't seen the term "law of evolution," right? What does this show us? It shows that gravity is known to be real''

But you said that laws are always true, in fact you used that as an argument to ''prove'' why gravity is real and why evolution is not, simply because there is a law of gravity you implied that, that's what makes it true but now you are saying that a law might be wrong so how do you know gravity is true then?

Gravity is a law because of the overwhelming experience of it by people. It definitely exists. But if we find that we are all part of a simulation where nothing that seems to be real exists, then the law of gravity might not exist. If you don't think gravity is a not law, show us why.

The point about ST is that STs can change. So they aren't known to be true simply from their definition.

[Astargath]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg50483476#msg50483476
^^^ And for your peanut brain, all I have been saying all along is that a science theory is something that is not known to be true. That's why it is a theory and not a law.

A science theory might absolutely be right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc. The reason it is a theory is that nobody KNOWS that it is "right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc." There is reason to think that it might not be "right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc."

A law is simply something that is so extremely substantiated that it is right, true, real, the-fact-of-the-matter, etc. This doesn't necessarily mean that a law can never be refuted by bringing to light some fundamental way in which the whole understanding about the law is wrong.

Why don't you read what I have been saying rather than attempting to put words into my mouth? Oh that's right! Your main reason for being here is to maintain that which is the standard, even if it is actually wrong.

So, I thank you. Buy twisting things around you show that you don't have a straight-forward answer for them. This indicates that you and standard science don't know much of anything. Now thank me for acknowledging that you are important enough that you can stand for standard science.

All you are showing is that your understanding of science is a religion. So, it's easy to understand why you would hate religion. You can't get away from it, and yours is kinda false.

''that a science theory is something that is not known to be true. That's why it is a theory and not a law.'' And again, that's simply wrong, where are you getting your definitions from? Read the definition of scientific theory vs law, nowhere it mentions that a law is true and a scientific theory is not, NOWHERE.

''A law is simply something that is so extremely substantiated that it is right, true, real'' No it's not, again you are simply making up definitions here.
The definition is: ''The laws of science, also called scientific laws or scientific principles, are statements that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.''
Scientific theory: ''A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.''

The word "theory" shows that a science theory might not be true. The term "science theory" self-defines. The only KNOWN facts about a science theory are:
1. Some or all of the parts of the ST may be known to be factual, individually, or when combined in ways other than the way stated in the particular ST;
2. The ST is know to factually be a ST;
3. The "object" that the ST is trying to "prove" is known to not be known to be factual in every circumstance.
Your definition of a ST, above, doesn't get into it deep enough to express it nearly completely. Read my explanation, again to see that we are not disagreeing about a ST. You simply are not describing it entirely.

As for a science law, all it is, is an observation that is so prevalent in the way that it appears to act or exist, that it is deemed to be absolutely certain the way it is described. This doesn't mean that all the observations are absolutely correct observations. Millions of people can make the same mistake in their observance of a SL. So, we are both right if we say that a SL might be wrong.

But a ST is absolutely known to not be known to be factual, even though it appears to act factually correct in many cases.

The key words in the definitions are the words "law" and "theory."

When someone thinks that something that is not known to be factual is factual, he is starting a religion for himself. This means that all people are religious beings, because none of us know the fact about everything. That's why atheists hate religion if they do... because they don't KNOW that God doesn't exist. This makes their atheism a religion. They hate not knowing.

''So, we are both right if we say that a SL might be wrong.''

''Haven't you seen the term "law of gravity?" But you haven't seen the term "law of evolution," right? What does this show us? It shows that gravity is known to be real''

But you said that laws are always true, in fact you used that as an argument to ''prove'' why gravity is real and why evolution is not, simply because there is a law of gravity you implied that, that's what makes it true but now you are saying that a law might be wrong so how do you know gravity is true then?

Gravity is a law because of the overwhelming experience of it by people. It definitely exists. But if we find that we are all part of a simulation where nothing that seems to be real exists, then the law of gravity might not exist. If you don't think gravity is a not law, show us why.

The point about ST is that STs can change. So they aren't known to be true simply from their definition.

'' If you don't think gravity is a not law, show us why.'' No, I know why gravity is a law but you said that laws are always true and that's why evolution is not true, because it doesn't have a law. Now you are saying the law of gravity might not be true, then why did you say evolution is not true because it doesn't have a law when you admit laws can be wrong too? Don't you see the flawed logic here?

[BADecker]

'' If you don't think gravity is a not law, show us why.'' No, I know why gravity is a law but you said that laws are always true and that's why evolution is not true, because it doesn't have a law. Now you are saying the law of gravity might not be true, then why did you say evolution is not true because it doesn't have a law when you admit laws can be wrong too? Don't you see the flawed logic here?

True changes when the parameters of true change.

Gravity law true parameters haven't changed.

Evolution law true parameters never existed.

Gravity theory doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the actions of gravity law.

Evolution theory is trying to find some real evolution.

[CoinCube]

Is it really a desire to seek the truth or a desire to seek hope. We are all humans, most of us think about the same things deep down, death, life, meaning, I admit I have faith and beliefs that are irrational sometimes when I think about death or if life has any meaning because otherwise my life would be, well, meaningless. I'm sure you also do that and you are not really looking for the truth if the truth is actually something along the lines of: the universe doesn't care, no one cares, everything is meaningless universally and we are all going to die and that's it. No one wants that, let's be honest, I don't however I also cannot force myself to believe in a God, the small hope I have is that perhaps life is not meaningless, maybe there is something, maybe we cannot even comprehend it right now, who knows.

Probably a mix of both to be honest. I agree we are all human and most of us think about the same things deep down, death, life, meaning.

Personally I have always been very interested in the last of these meaning. When I was a teenager I rejected Christianity. I was surrounded at the time by Christians who were not very logical and unable to defend their beliefs on logical grounds. I was a smart guy and I decided I would find a true worldview grounded in science not emotion and unrealistic hope and myths.

I knew immediately, however, that in rejecting Christianity I had ripped up the foundation under my feet and it had to be replaced. I scoured the classics Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, Hume all in a search for meaning looking to build a new and more rational world view for myself. Eventually I found Bentham and celebrated my discovery of a truly rational philosophy one based on calculations and determination of the greatest good for the greatest number. Satisfied that I had solved the question to my satisfaction I went on my merry way certain I had found the answer.

For the next 15 years I kept Christians at arms length. I knew from experience that their beliefs by and large made them happy and my own views demanded I not purposely disrupt that happiness so I simply avoided the topic preferring to let them live in what I perceived at the time to be a happy but mistaken delusion.

I had rejected religion on the bases of tradition and rejected God via logical inference. The only path forward for me was to embrace and live out some philosophy of life not grounded in God and observe how it played out. In my case that was utilitarianism and the process of living it out took 15 years.

Eventually I realized that utilitarianism failed me as a practical philosophy. Even more ironically I eventually came to the conclusion that I should reject utilitarianism on utilitarian grounds which is about as profound of an invalidation as one can get. That required me to again rebuild my philosophical foundation. This time I was older and wiser and really dug into the question to the best of my ability. The result is what I shared with you earlier in An Argument for God.

I don’t claim that to be some all important insight or even particularly useful for anyone except me but it was my answer to the question. The honest output of my wholehearted and genuine attempt to address the question comprehensively and logically. I came to the conclusion that I was mistaken all those years ago and the happy simpletons who I had held in such contempt were right all along. My arrogant younger self would have been shocked.

I agree with you that we live in a universe that allows us to choose our truth. One can choose to believe that the universe doesn't care, that no one cares, that everything is meaningless universally and we are all going to die and that's it. I like you find that prospect unappealing.

If the universe was like that then our duty would be clear. We would need to fix it. How does one fix an uncaring universe? Simple we start by fixing ourselves. We find meaning and caring within ourselves and then spread that healing and meaning to our neighbors our offspring and eventually throughout the universe. With time effort and sacrifice all things are possible.

P.S. I watched Heaven Sent an episode of Dr. Who on television yesterday. It’s available for free on amazon prime. It was one of the most inspirational things I have ever seen on television. Totally religion free but it really drives home the message that no goal is impossible. I highly recommend it if you have not seen it. It can stand on its own you don’t have to have watched the other episodes in the series.

If anyone wants to watch this who does not have amazon prime it’s also available for free currently here:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x62gxzc

Fantastic piece of television. Highly recommended.

[Astargath]

'' If you don't think gravity is a not law, show us why.'' No, I know why gravity is a law but you said that laws are always true and that's why evolution is not true, because it doesn't have a law. Now you are saying the law of gravity might not be true, then why did you say evolution is not true because it doesn't have a law when you admit laws can be wrong too? Don't you see the flawed logic here?

True changes when the parameters of true change.

Gravity law true parameters haven't changed.

Evolution law true parameters never existed.

Gravity theory doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the actions of gravity law.

Evolution theory is trying to find some real evolution.

Let me repeat what you said, for you. You said that evolution is not known to be true/factual because it doesn't have a law, gravity on the other hand, you said, it has a law and therefore it's true/factual. My point here was that you yourself admitted that laws aren't 100% factual so why would you base your conclusion that gravity is a fact on its law when you don't know if that law is factual?

Simply your argument is wrong. You can't say evolution is not real because it doesn't have a law, nowhere in science does it say that scientific theories need laws, not to mention that evolution theory does actually use laws to explain evolution, also facts and other observations.

[CoinCube]

Why Has The West Been So Successful?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RVD0xik-_FM

[BADecker]

'' If you don't think gravity is a not law, show us why.'' No, I know why gravity is a law but you said that laws are always true and that's why evolution is not true, because it doesn't have a law. Now you are saying the law of gravity might not be true, then why did you say evolution is not true because it doesn't have a law when you admit laws can be wrong too? Don't you see the flawed logic here?

True changes when the parameters of true change.

Gravity law true parameters haven't changed.

Evolution law true parameters never existed.

Gravity theory doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the actions of gravity law.

Evolution theory is trying to find some real evolution.

Let me repeat what you said, for you. You said that evolution is not known to be true/factual because it doesn't have a law, gravity on the other hand, you said, it has a law and therefore it's true/factual. My point here was that you yourself admitted that laws aren't 100% factual so why would you base your conclusion that gravity is a fact on its law when you don't know if that law is factual?

Simply your argument is wrong. You can't say evolution is not real because it doesn't have a law, nowhere in science does it say that scientific theories need laws, not to mention that evolution theory does actually use laws to explain evolution, also facts and other observations.

Let me repeat something that I haven't had to for a long time. The gist of what we are talking about doesn't have anything to do with the perfect wording of what we are talking about.

If we have to state all the meanings of each little section of wording all the time, our posts would be miles deep.

There is nothing wrong with what I said. There is wrongness in the ways you twist what I say into things that we are not talking about.

Evolution is not known to be factual because it has never been found that we know of. Gravity is factual because we use it everyday all the time.

Atheists hate religion because they can't get away from the fact that people are religious beings. People are slaves to religion, and nobody likes being a slave... except for the slave who is treated well.

[BADecker]

Why Has The West Been So Successful?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RVD0xik-_FM

Great video. Personally, other than revelation by God, the bottom-line basic scientific foundation for combining religion and science, is cause and effect. However, we see this as the basic foundation in religious action, as well.

[Astargath]

'' If you don't think gravity is a not law, show us why.'' No, I know why gravity is a law but you said that laws are always true and that's why evolution is not true, because it doesn't have a law. Now you are saying the law of gravity might not be true, then why did you say evolution is not true because it doesn't have a law when you admit laws can be wrong too? Don't you see the flawed logic here?

True changes when the parameters of true change.

Gravity law true parameters haven't changed.

Evolution law true parameters never existed.

Gravity theory doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the actions of gravity law.

Evolution theory is trying to find some real evolution.

Let me repeat what you said, for you. You said that evolution is not known to be true/factual because it doesn't have a law, gravity on the other hand, you said, it has a law and therefore it's true/factual. My point here was that you yourself admitted that laws aren't 100% factual so why would you base your conclusion that gravity is a fact on its law when you don't know if that law is factual?

Simply your argument is wrong. You can't say evolution is not real because it doesn't have a law, nowhere in science does it say that scientific theories need laws, not to mention that evolution theory does actually use laws to explain evolution, also facts and other observations.

Let me repeat something that I haven't had to for a long time. The gist of what we are talking about doesn't have anything to do with the perfect wording of what we are talking about.

If we have to state all the meanings of each little section of wording all the time, our posts would be miles deep.

There is nothing wrong with what I said. There is wrongness in the ways you twist what I say into things that we are not talking about.

Evolution is not known to be factual because it has never been found that we know of. Gravity is factual because we use it everyday all the time.

Atheists hate religion because they can't get away from the fact that people are religious beings. People are slaves to religion, and nobody likes being a slave... except for the slave who is treated well.

''Evolution is not known to be factual because it has never been found that we know of'' There are hundreds of examples of evolution though.

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-evolution.html

Evolution is used everyday by every animal on earth.

[BADecker]

^^^ See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg50544634#msg50544634.

[Astargath]

^^^ See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg50544634#msg50544634.

I don't know what that means, you asked for examples and I provided them, as usual you are ignoring the evidence because you are incapable of accepting it, you can't live without your imaginary god and that's fine but don't tell us you use science, you don't.

[TalkStar]

"Humanities" needs no religion. Honestly I believe if we think it deeply that all the different religious person are same in blood then it will be pretty much easier to live on our society with different types of religious. Which is really important for us is that we are not animal, we are human. We are different from animals because we got the ability to think about rights and wrongs. If we conflict with each other then that difference is nothing but a simple word.

[Flangler]

Atheists have no interest in religion. It's not a lot different from having no interest in bowling or having no interest knitting. There's a specific part of the brain that determines if you have a 'spiritual' need. Those without this area of the brain never develop an interest in religion, or at best only a mild interest. The science behind this is compelling; anyone can look it up.

Even if this is true, atheists can force themselves to believe the things about God and salvation, and so be saved.

A person who loses an arm or a leg in life can still function. Life is simply more difficult.

People who lose the religion part of their brain can still believe God and be save. It is simply more difficult.

Interesting point of view you have. I think it depends on individual capability of taking harm. Humans seek cure from suffer when they can't stop it. If our technology can't help we are trying to find help from something greater.

[BADecker]

^^^ Another thing that humans do is to set their minds in such a way that they won't change, no matter the evidence or proof. The interesting thing is that no the more a person sets his mind, the stronger his mindset gets. But mindset doesn't change reality.

[BADecker]

^^^ See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg50544634#msg50544634.

I don't know what that means, you asked for examples and I provided them, as usual you are ignoring the evidence because you are incapable of accepting it, you can't live without your imaginary god and that's fine but don't tell us you use science, you don't.

First, I didn't ask for examples. You simply misunderstood; I was making a statement by appearing to ask for examples;

Second, you continue to want to remain off-topic, and then state that you "don't know what that means;"

Third, why do you think that I am not accepting your evidence, since it only serves to maintain the things that I have been saying?;

Fourth, nobody can live without God. It is my hope that my imaginary god is way more like God than your imaginary god is.. at least until a time that our imaginary gods are very similar;

Fifth, why would I want to use science? After all, science is so extremely limited that, even given the chance and freedom it has today, it would take thousands of years for science to catch up to the facts that religion has achieved through revelation from God.

Wake up!, before it's too late for you. Atheism is one of the most stupid religions around.

[Astargath]

^^^ See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg50544634#msg50544634.

I don't know what that means, you asked for examples and I provided them, as usual you are ignoring the evidence because you are incapable of accepting it, you can't live without your imaginary god and that's fine but don't tell us you use science, you don't.

First, I didn't ask for examples. You simply misunderstood; I was making a statement by appearing to ask for examples;

Second, you continue to want to remain off-topic, and then state that you "don't know what that means;"

Third, why do you think that I am not accepting your evidence, since it only serves to maintain the things that I have been saying?;

Fourth, nobody can live without God. It is my hope that my imaginary god is way more like God than your imaginary god is.. at least until a time that our imaginary gods are very similar;

Fifth, why would I want to use science? After all, science is so extremely limited that, even given the chance and freedom it has today, it would take thousands of years for science to catch up to the facts that religion has achieved through revelation from God.

Wake up!, before it's too late for you. Atheism is one of the most stupid religions around.

You said it has never been found, I showed you examples where it was found, again you wont accept your defeat, the delusion is too strong. ''Fourth, nobody can live without God.'' Plenty of people died in horrible conditions even though they were believers, I don't know what you mean by this.

[BADecker]

^^^ See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg50544634#msg50544634.

I don't know what that means, you asked for examples and I provided them, as usual you are ignoring the evidence because you are incapable of accepting it, you can't live without your imaginary god and that's fine but don't tell us you use science, you don't.

First, I didn't ask for examples. You simply misunderstood; I was making a statement by appearing to ask for examples;

Second, you continue to want to remain off-topic, and then state that you "don't know what that means;"

Third, why do you think that I am not accepting your evidence, since it only serves to maintain the things that I have been saying?;

Fourth, nobody can live without God. It is my hope that my imaginary god is way more like God than your imaginary god is.. at least until a time that our imaginary gods are very similar;

Fifth, why would I want to use science? After all, science is so extremely limited that, even given the chance and freedom it has today, it would take thousands of years for science to catch up to the facts that religion has achieved through revelation from God.

Wake up!, before it's too late for you. Atheism is one of the most stupid religions around.

You said it has never been found, I showed you examples where it was found, again you wont accept your defeat, the delusion is too strong. ''Fourth, nobody can live without God.'' Plenty of people died in horrible conditions even though they were believers, I don't know what you mean by this.

Your examples are simply examples of people becoming excited because they thought they had found it. Not because they had found it.

Same with atheism. People think that they really have something in atheism. Then they find out that it is just another religion, because it doesn't fit nature and miracles and the fact that they live on faith... just like all the other false religions of the world.

[Astargath]

^^^ See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg50544634#msg50544634.

I don't know what that means, you asked for examples and I provided them, as usual you are ignoring the evidence because you are incapable of accepting it, you can't live without your imaginary god and that's fine but don't tell us you use science, you don't.

First, I didn't ask for examples. You simply misunderstood; I was making a statement by appearing to ask for examples;

Second, you continue to want to remain off-topic, and then state that you "don't know what that means;"

Third, why do you think that I am not accepting your evidence, since it only serves to maintain the things that I have been saying?;

Fourth, nobody can live without God. It is my hope that my imaginary god is way more like God than your imaginary god is.. at least until a time that our imaginary gods are very similar;

Fifth, why would I want to use science? After all, science is so extremely limited that, even given the chance and freedom it has today, it would take thousands of years for science to catch up to the facts that religion has achieved through revelation from God.

Wake up!, before it's too late for you. Atheism is one of the most stupid religions around.

You said it has never been found, I showed you examples where it was found, again you wont accept your defeat, the delusion is too strong. ''Fourth, nobody can live without God.'' Plenty of people died in horrible conditions even though they were believers, I don't know what you mean by this.

Your examples are simply examples of people becoming excited because they thought they had found it. Not because they had found it.

Same with atheism. People think that they really have something in atheism. Then they find out that it is just another religion, because it doesn't fit nature and miracles and the fact that they live on faith... just like all the other false religions of the world.

How do you know the others are false religions? They also say the same about yours, there is no way to know which religion is the true religion.