Atheism is a religion

It is proven that it in your perception it is honest to start talking about the treatment of homosexuals infiltrating the CC by the CC in this discussion. It is intellectually honest for you to call child abusers the smartest people of the society, just because you either one of them or one of the victims and for no other reason submitted or visible.

No, I’ve not been saying opposite to what you hear. Voices in your head have NOTHING to do to what I have been saying.

There is not even a single atheist who does not see the word God in my words you’ve quoted above your sentence. No atheist can believe it is not there. Thanks for another proof that atheists are delusional.

OK. I have to attack premises when on other side you don’t even have to hear what I have said and attack your own rubbish you have made up. Thanks for another demonstration of atheists escaping basic logic.

All atheists think that they are more logical than Newton. Does Newton say that if it is defined it must exist? Does He? or he does not? Hey atheists, take your shot. Does He? or he does not? There is no better entertainment than to watch atheists exercising their escapes from basic logic.

In the same way as the fact that atheists do not hear, do not see, but keep on going with their mouth open has been demonstrated. Have you missed the scientific method in my posts? I hope you are not missing the feeling of bumping into a steel pole with your eyes and ears closed and mouth open.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYm5sdOYJcg"]Idiot bumping into a pole - YouTube[/ame]

Yeah well, what did I say? Hey atheists take a shot. Did I ever tell that you should believe in the Bible? Yes? No?
Sure you can look at Jews, Mumbo-Jumbo, Quaran and even into such rubbish as the decent of the man, just to prove to me that you are void of any reason. Take a hike to the Jewish stand and don’t tell me how to advertise my brand which has been on the market for over 2000 year and in difference from Judaism has been publicly traded.

Do you ever leave your parents basement to explore the material world beyond the dark confinements of their basement? Do you ever read anybody’s words on this forum or you only communicate with voices in your head?

I am not sure, too. Sometimes I do reply to the final truth of atheists like “Get education.” “You don’t know anything about ____________ “ (fill the blank) “Your understanding of the implications of randomness are lacking.” Sometimes I decide that mental deficiencies of atheists have been exposed more than enough, and let them enjoy their final truth. But if once in while you feel like you’ve run into a steel pole, you better know the pole did not mean to engage you.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GxjDTLPUCM&feature=related"]kid runs into a pole - YouTube[/ame]

 

1. Your point of 2nd sentence bumps into your point in the 1st sentence.

You have multiplied entities over necessities.
What “our” and what “spiritual’’ world? Does the spiritual world exist and is it ‘‘ours”? Is your term "existence" understood in the same way by everyone?

And then what would be the shortest and most efficient way (not listed by me) to come to knowledge of “our” spiritual world and existence of G-d as a spiritual entity?

Saying ‘Neither of the above’ you suggest no alternative, nothing, no existence of anything at all.

Atheists deny existence of “our” and “spiritual” world. They see the material world:
The electrons in the atom go round and round,
round and round,
round and round.
The mouth on the head go open and shut.
The bell in the head goes ding-ding-ding.

And they ask, - What spiritual?

‘Existence’ in the converstation is existance in one’s personal worldview, no matter what is the form of existance, no matter what the personal worldview perception of the world can be spilt into without any necessety for such splitting except for an urge to express oneself, or other words to put 2 cents in.



2. Now since you’re a nuclear physicist and a professor of math I am going to bring to you attention that your perception of the material world is a delusion. I hope for a professional understanding even if what I’ii say will shock you. It is not your personal but a professional delusion.

Ask any of your fellow physicists and mathematicians (don’t bother with others) –

Do photons, neutrino, quant exist in the material world?
Does the number 5 exist?
Do the straight line, circle and cube exist in the material world?
Do electrons less mathematical expressions of their existence exist as material objects?

You see?

Do they exist in “our spiritual world”? Do we use their existence to interact with the material world, when for atheists interacting with the material world they are some kind of a holy caw atheists always refer to without any clue of its substance and properties?

Is it more appropriate to justify the age by our planet by performing laboratory experiments? Why don’t just take it as just 6000 or 10000? Does the scale make a difference for any practical application of the experiments?

Physics was devised and used to serve for finding correct interpretation of the Book. Some may interpret that the earth is so much of age. Such an interpretation is not a dogma even for the CC. http://holyjoe.org/dogmas.doc No truth of the Bible depends on it. Thus laboratory experiments on the flood, age and creation is another personal/group interpretation of the Bible which has nothing to do to Xn dogmas.

I know a material girl [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAcz2tKaSM"]Madonna - Material Girl - YouTube[/ame] , but I have to dig for a spiritual girl.

Here she is, - at the pole, - http://www.eso-garden.com/images/uploads_bilder/who_are_you_madame_blavatsky_4.jpg
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/longseal.htm


I take the material girl over the spiritual one anytime.

In other words no, I don’t. I see a cliché some use to come to peaceful coexistence without any attempt to get any clue about things they want peacefully coexist with. I see good emotion and feelings but poor understanding.

 

Atheist organizations get a tax exemption.

 

Atheist organizations across the United States are already tax exempt. I posted that information and link several days ago.

 

As with any non-profit. Secular organizations are not able to obtain such exceptions as easily as churches.

 

Whatever..... the atheists got it.... and the US Supreme Court says that Atheism is a religion for the purposes of the 1st Amendment and now the IRS has recognized them as eligible for tax exemption... 2 + 2 = Religious Tax Exemption.

 

I am using the word "our" for both believers and nonbelievers. The adjective "spiritual" stands for "nonmaterial. When I say "X exists" it mean I accept its reality. This is probably true for other people.

Good question. I wish I knew how to answer it. I am a scientist, not a theologian. But I do live in two worlds, spiritual and material.

That would be true if there were only two alternatives. But I did not say so.

That does not make them bad people.

It is the world of those who believe in God. They are not bad people, either.

Yes, I understand what you are saying.

I disagree. Trying to justify/deny God's existence by performing laboratory experiments is as inappropriate as trying to justify/deny the age of our planet by quoting from a holy book.

That is OK with me.

The claims "we are better than you" can lead to genocides. That is the danger to recognize.
.
Thank you for challenging comments,

 

Why is it necessary for people of alleged religious morals to claim that Atheism is a religion?

In my view, it cannot be a religion if there is no god to bear false witness to; that is the primary distinction, in my view.

 

It's funny they say it like it is a negative thing. Well Atheism is a RELIGION. As many Christians (not all) continue to persecute homosexuals and deny evolution, it's really ironic. They continue to hold to inerrancy without justification.

 

Maybe it's the same reason why you felt it necessary to share your views?

So what made you state your view? (Especially in a thread where that was explicitly discouraged but I'm going to stop being bitter about that now)

 

Would it be, that persons of alleged Religion may not have an argument that is not based on some form of religion?

Why does it need to prove that persons of alleged and subjective, religious moral values are worse when they can claim there is another religion involved?

 

Merely to state the irony of persons of alleged and subjective religious moral values who are willing to call a kettle black when being a black pot themselves.

I usually don't mind smoking pot instead of taking so much time to call kettles black.

 

Speaking to the boundaries of existence: Where does the spiritual world end and the material world begin, and vice versa? Those boundaries might give an insight as to how to find a method of validation of claims.

 

As far as we know the 'spiritual world' exists only in human imaginations. I expect it is the same sort of distinction as between (actual) brain and (theoretical) 'mind'. The world 'material' tends to carry too many associations with a deterministic and far-too-simple form of science, but it seems to me that if we stick to the demonstrable we won't go far wrong.

 

Who is "we"?

Here do some reading on the subject: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sp/suspirit.htm

Are you NOT certain?

 

Every color for examole exists only in our imaginaton. It's a kind of algorithm what helps us to see the world with our brain in thousands of different qualities of red, green and blue light. I geard we got this ability from one of our only plants eating ancestor of the evoltion. So what? Green grass is still green grass.

http://youtu.be/EEpHFU7NCls

 

I would say that atheism is similar to religion; like islam is similar to judaism, etc. Similarities and differences are often present at the same time.
.

 

If you define religion as dogma that cannot be questioned I would agree. Otherwise no.

 

The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words. (Applause.)

http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_colour_and_design.html

A little more detailed consideration of the related Young-Helmholtz theory.

You did better than Kelvin. Kelvin could find no words. maybe 'cause you did not have scientific ladies examining your tie and haircut at the moment...

 

1) The debate will shift toward the "which religion is better."

2) RELIGION = THEOLOGY + MANY OTHR THINGS

Developing a new theology will take much longer than "one day."
.

 

Do you have examples of any similarities between the two definitions?

 

Like religious people shun sinners at times.
Athiest believe having a religion is the sin. Mind you athiests will often take on a religion that doesnt involve a higher power but rather tapping into thier own power.

An athiest is not an enemy, buts not equiped to escape death. And not in the mind frame to believe it. Even if his belief makes it true.

 

First of all, welcome to PF!!! You'll meet a variety of people here, and I hope you find some enjoyment on here. However, now that you have thrown your hat in the ring you are fair game!! No personal animosity intended, I try to stick to arguments and not personal attack.

I'm taking issue with you saying that atheists think having religion is a sin. First of all, sin is a religious concept. It means you are falling short of God's standard. So by definition I don't see how an atheist could believe such a thing. However, I do think you are right in that many atheists think religion is a disease of the mind that cripples critical inquiry and progress. In that sense they would not call religion a sin, but it could be some sort of equivalent to what sin would be under the Christian religion.

Now, I don't think all religion is bad. Religion can give people comfort, like an old person dying or a mother who has lost a child. This would be something I'm not really against. What upsets me is when religion (I guess I mean more Christianity here) call homosexuality a sin, denies evolution, and take anti-scientific stances simply BECAUSE IT DISAGREES WITH WHAT THEIR RELIGION SAYS, and not due to a skepticism of knowledge in general. That is what really bugs me.

 

First homosexuals blaim the CC for covering homosexuals, then when the CC takes a harsher stance, homosexuals complain that they are persecuted....

I guess the only thing which would make the homosexuals happy if the CC shoot itself in the head.

And a note for kowalski, - as you can see science definitely proves that G-d does not exist on the example of evolution. Denying evolution is anti-scientific and deniers should be shut.


Homosexuals happily forget times when they were castrated on the grounds of the theory of evolution and how Xns taking agressive anti-science actions bailed them out. Certainly Xns did a mistake, they should stop denying evolution.... or else.

 

Tell that to Kenneth Miller, who is clearly more of a Christian than you'll ever be.

Supporting creationism is unscientific. Being unscientific doesn't make it wrong, just unscientific.