Health and Religion

[practicaldreamer]

i know a lot of smart people who are atheist but they really struggle with accepting that their so-called free will is illusory.

I know a lot of not smart people who know very well that free will is illusory.

Where does that leave us ?

[1715071113]

1715071113

[1715071113]

1715071113

[1715071113]

1715071113

[BADecker]

No, I don't seem to be saying that dictionaries are religions. I'll write this more simply for you:

In all dictionary definitions of "religion" the vast majority are not consistent with atheist belief.

Of course, to atheists they wouldn't be. Atheist say, we not have a religion by dictionary definition. By saying this, they are showing that they have a religion by the dictionary definition. Silly atheists.

You're either not understanding or being intentionally obtuse so I'll explain for you one more time.

"Not consistent with atheist belief" means that the definition of religion includes supernatural agencies. Nearly all dictionary definitions require a belief in the supernatural in order to be a religion. Therefore nearly all definitions of religion are not consistent with atheism.

"Not consistent with atheist belief" shows atheism as a religion because of the word "belief." That word alone points out that atheism is probably a religion. When you add to "belief" the rest of the dictionary definitions of "religion," you find that atheism is either religion, or so extremely close to religion that you can't tell for a fact that it is not a religion.<snip>

Not true. Just because I believe something without being able to prove it doesn't mean I have religious beliefs about it.

As an example I believe you're a dickhead. I can't prove it, but I'm not making a religion of your dickheadedness. Further, if someone is able to prove you're *not* a dickhead, then I'll change my mind about you.

As a contrast, people with religious beliefs are unable to change their minds about their religion even in the face of opposing proof.

Now you have added the slang word "dickhead" to your personal religion. Or was it there all along and you had simply never proclaimed it before?

Keep on. The more you proclaim this and that, the firmer you make your religion... even when it is the religion of atheism... the religion of non-religion.

All of your proclamations help to fit your religion into the dictionary definition of "religion."

[Moloch]

i know a lot of smart people who are atheist but they really struggle with accepting that their so-called free will is illusory.

I know a lot of not smart people who know very well that free will is illusory.

Where does that leave us ?

Free will is only illusory if god exists... but, since god does not exist, your will is free from god's manipulation

The only impediment to your free will is your susceptibility to manipulation (read gullibility)

[iTradeChips]

i know a lot of smart people who are atheist but they really struggle with accepting that their so-called free will is illusory.

I know a lot of not smart people who know very well that free will is illusory.

Where does that leave us ?

Free will is only illusory if god exists... but, since god does not exist, your will is free from god's manipulation

The only impediment to your free will is your susceptibility to manipulation (read gullibility)

free will cannot be true because it contadicts causality. they cannot both be true. one of them must go. if you believe that the physical universe is governed by causality, then there is no room for freewill in any consistent model of the universe.

[BADecker]

i know a lot of smart people who are atheist but they really struggle with accepting that their so-called free will is illusory.

I know a lot of not smart people who know very well that free will is illusory.

Where does that leave us ?

Free will is only illusory if god exists... but, since god does not exist, your will is free from god's manipulation

The only impediment to your free will is your susceptibility to manipulation (read gullibility)

free will cannot be true because it contadicts causality. they cannot both be true. one of them must go. if you believe that the physical universe is governed by causality, then there is no room for freewill in any consistent model of the universe.

God is so extremely great, that He can allow free will while making things operate completely by cause and effect. We may not understand it easily, but we can understand how it works, basically.

[practicaldreamer]

if you believe that the physical universe is governed by causality, then there is no room for freewill in any consistent model of the universe.

Yes, I'd tend to agree with you.

But you don't need an IQ of 140 to work it out.

What is intelligence anyhow ? And how are you going to measure it ? And who decides ?

And whats any of it to do with an individual having faith ? Or believing ?

But if I were to indulge you - and your line of reasoning - I'd have to say that beyond your elite "140's" who are atheist and don't believe in free will are those of 150+ who, well, can't be sure one way or the other.

[organofcorti]

No, I don't seem to be saying that dictionaries are religions. I'll write this more simply for you:

In all dictionary definitions of "religion" the vast majority are not consistent with atheist belief.

Of course, to atheists they wouldn't be. Atheist say, we not have a religion by dictionary definition. By saying this, they are showing that they have a religion by the dictionary definition. Silly atheists.

You're either not understanding or being intentionally obtuse so I'll explain for you one more time.

"Not consistent with atheist belief" means that the definition of religion includes supernatural agencies. Nearly all dictionary definitions require a belief in the supernatural in order to be a religion. Therefore nearly all definitions of religion are not consistent with atheism.

"Not consistent with atheist belief" shows atheism as a religion because of the word "belief." That word alone points out that atheism is probably a religion. When you add to "belief" the rest of the dictionary definitions of "religion," you find that atheism is either religion, or so extremely close to religion that you can't tell for a fact that it is not a religion.<snip>

Not true. Just because I believe something without being able to prove it doesn't mean I have religious beliefs about it.

As an example I believe you're a dickhead. I can't prove it, but I'm not making a religion of your dickheadedness. Further, if someone is able to prove you're *not* a dickhead, then I'll change my mind about you.

As a contrast, people with religious beliefs are unable to change their minds about their religion even in the face of opposing proof.

Now you have added the slang word "dickhead" to your personal religion. Or was it there all along and you had simply never proclaimed it before?

Keep on. The more you proclaim this and that, the firmer you make your religion... even when it is the religion of atheism... the religion of non-religion.

All of your proclamations help to fit your religion into the dictionary definition of "religion."

So your proof for the existence of something I believe is a statement from me that it is not something I believe?

Unfortunately that's not how discussion works.

[BADecker]

No, I don't seem to be saying that dictionaries are religions. I'll write this more simply for you:

In all dictionary definitions of "religion" the vast majority are not consistent with atheist belief.

Of course, to atheists they wouldn't be. Atheist say, we not have a religion by dictionary definition. By saying this, they are showing that they have a religion by the dictionary definition. Silly atheists.

You're either not understanding or being intentionally obtuse so I'll explain for you one more time.

"Not consistent with atheist belief" means that the definition of religion includes supernatural agencies. Nearly all dictionary definitions require a belief in the supernatural in order to be a religion. Therefore nearly all definitions of religion are not consistent with atheism.

"Not consistent with atheist belief" shows atheism as a religion because of the word "belief." That word alone points out that atheism is probably a religion. When you add to "belief" the rest of the dictionary definitions of "religion," you find that atheism is either religion, or so extremely close to religion that you can't tell for a fact that it is not a religion.<snip>

Not true. Just because I believe something without being able to prove it doesn't mean I have religious beliefs about it.

As an example I believe you're a dickhead. I can't prove it, but I'm not making a religion of your dickheadedness. Further, if someone is able to prove you're *not* a dickhead, then I'll change my mind about you.

As a contrast, people with religious beliefs are unable to change their minds about their religion even in the face of opposing proof.

Now you have added the slang word "dickhead" to your personal religion. Or was it there all along and you had simply never proclaimed it before?

Keep on. The more you proclaim this and that, the firmer you make your religion... even when it is the religion of atheism... the religion of non-religion.

All of your proclamations help to fit your religion into the dictionary definition of "religion."

So your proof for the existence of something I believe is a statement from me that it is not something I believe?

Unfortunately that's not how discussion works.

If I was suggesting the proof of your faith, I could easily be wrong, because I don't know you well enough for that. It was your idea that I have proof.

The proof that everyone has religion goes beyond knowing that you have a particular kind of religion.

[Moloch]

School board member tells atheists to ‘crawl back into their hellhole’ if they don’t like ‘Christmas break’
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/school-board-member-tells-atheists-to-crawl-back-into-their-hellhole-if-they-dont-like-christmas-break/

A Nebraska school board member fought a losing battle to bring back the designation “Christmas break” in place of the proposed “winter break” on the school calendar and invited atheists to “crawl back in their hellhole” if they didn’t like it...

[organofcorti]

No, I don't seem to be saying that dictionaries are religions. I'll write this more simply for you:

In all dictionary definitions of "religion" the vast majority are not consistent with atheist belief.

Of course, to atheists they wouldn't be. Atheist say, we not have a religion by dictionary definition. By saying this, they are showing that they have a religion by the dictionary definition. Silly atheists.

You're either not understanding or being intentionally obtuse so I'll explain for you one more time.

"Not consistent with atheist belief" means that the definition of religion includes supernatural agencies. Nearly all dictionary definitions require a belief in the supernatural in order to be a religion. Therefore nearly all definitions of religion are not consistent with atheism.

"Not consistent with atheist belief" shows atheism as a religion because of the word "belief." That word alone points out that atheism is probably a religion. When you add to "belief" the rest of the dictionary definitions of "religion," you find that atheism is either religion, or so extremely close to religion that you can't tell for a fact that it is not a religion.<snip>

Not true. Just because I believe something without being able to prove it doesn't mean I have religious beliefs about it.

As an example I believe you're a dickhead. I can't prove it, but I'm not making a religion of your dickheadedness. Further, if someone is able to prove you're *not* a dickhead, then I'll change my mind about you.

As a contrast, people with religious beliefs are unable to change their minds about their religion even in the face of opposing proof.

Now you have added the slang word "dickhead" to your personal religion. Or was it there all along and you had simply never proclaimed it before?

Keep on. The more you proclaim this and that, the firmer you make your religion... even when it is the religion of atheism... the religion of non-religion.

All of your proclamations help to fit your religion into the dictionary definition of "religion."

So your proof for the existence of something I believe is a statement from me that it is not something I believe?

Unfortunately that's not how discussion works.

If I was suggesting the proof of your faith, I could easily be wrong, because I don't know you well enough for that. It was your idea that I have proof.

The proof that everyone has religion goes beyond knowing that you have a particular kind of religion.

You don't have any kind of proof here. You didn't understand what I wrote so I'll rephrase:

The non-existence of a given belief (or claim thereof) is never proof for the existence of said belief.

[BADecker]

The non-existence of a given belief (or claim thereof) is never proof for the existence of said belief.

This is what I have been saying all along. Since atheism is self contradictory, it doesn't really exist, and therefore certainly can't be proof for its own existence.

What's the big deal?

[romero121]

Atheism as a religion doesn't exist. They themselves create as a separate religion and make people follow it. Their statements is out of religion but now they were trying to evolve into a religion.

[Moloch]

The non-existence of a given belief (or claim thereof) is never proof for the existence of said belief.

This is what I have been saying all along. Since atheism is self contradictory, it doesn't really exist, and therefore certainly can't be proof for its own existence.

What's the big deal?

How can you simultaneously claim that atheism is a religion, and atheism doesn't exist?  Those claims are not compatible

Please get your story straight before dictating my beliefs to me... thanks

[BADecker]

The non-existence of a given belief (or claim thereof) is never proof for the existence of said belief.

This is what I have been saying all along. Since atheism is self contradictory, it doesn't really exist, and therefore certainly can't be proof for its own existence.

What's the big deal?

How can you simultaneously claim that atheism is a religion, and atheism doesn't exist?  Those claims are not compatible

Please get your story straight before dictating my beliefs to me... thanks

But atheists believe atheism exists. So, they have a religion involving something that is non-existent. So, it is a religion of non-religion.

[Moloch]

The non-existence of a given belief (or claim thereof) is never proof for the existence of said belief.

This is what I have been saying all along. Since atheism is self contradictory, it doesn't really exist, and therefore certainly can't be proof for its own existence.

What's the big deal?

How can you simultaneously claim that atheism is a religion, and atheism doesn't exist?  Those claims are not compatible

Please get your story straight before dictating my beliefs to me... thanks

But atheists believe atheism exists. So, they have a religion involving something that is non-existent. So, it is a religion of non-religion.

Using the same logic, Christianity doesn't exist because Jesus is a fictional character

http://www.richardcarrier.info/Historicity_of_Jesus.pdf

[BADecker]

The non-existence of a given belief (or claim thereof) is never proof for the existence of said belief.

This is what I have been saying all along. Since atheism is self contradictory, it doesn't really exist, and therefore certainly can't be proof for its own existence.

What's the big deal?

How can you simultaneously claim that atheism is a religion, and atheism doesn't exist?  Those claims are not compatible

Please get your story straight before dictating my beliefs to me... thanks

But atheists believe atheism exists. So, they have a religion involving something that is non-existent. So, it is a religion of non-religion.

That's like claiming Christianity doesn't exist because Jesus is a fictional character

http://www.richardcarrier.info/Historicity_of_Jesus.pdf

That doesn't stop over a billion people from formally believing the religion, right?

The difference is, science proves that God exists, thereby debunking atheism. There might be little evidence outside of the Bible for the existence of Jesus, but, as CoinCube pointed out in one post, there is less evidence of Julius Caesar.

[resources]

Religion is poison. They are reasoned by books that have no evidence or witness. and i don't know if there are any cure

[BADecker]

Religion is poison. They are reasoned by books that have no evidence or witness. and i don't know if there are any cure

That's the point of this thread. The religion of atheism is poison. Why? Because science proves that God exists.

[Moloch]

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.

[Jmild1]

Religion is poison. They are reasoned by books that have no evidence or witness. and i don't know if there are any cure

That's the point of this thread. The religion of atheism is poison. Why? Because science proves that God exists.

Wut? Never know that atheism is a religion. Science proves that god exists? I wonder which god? And if it is I will not definitely call him a god because it might be an alien or extraterrestial.