Are Christians & Christianity being biased?

[rivrrat]

I agree, why should goth kids be prevented from expressing themselves, or atheists, who are usually the subject of such bans?

Well, I don't know what 'religious symbol' an atheist would have, but yeah.

 

[Red_Dave]

With the recent edict from British Airways with regard to their banning open display of jewellery in form of religious symbols IE; Cross, from being worn by their employees, are we going too far in worrying about what people who practise other faiths might think

Why should Christians have to change their long established way of life merely to pander to the (usually rabid demands) of adherents of another faith.

Enough is enough.

If their predominant religion in their country of birth, remains in that country, alternatively they may come as legal immigrants to my country, BUT they cannot attempt to use their religion as an excuse for me to change my way of life.

Do you agree?
Yes or no, please comment.

This is a complete non-issue. Christiality doesnt require you to wear religious icons [unless ive been practiceing it wrong for 18 years] so why insist in wearing one? The only reason problems like this occur is that people suffer from a media induced dellusion that christians are persecuted in the west and go looking for fights. The women in question could easyly have let it go but didnt out of sheer truculence. All this brings about is an atention seeking headline for the daily mail.

Most of the jewelry releated issues in the afformentioned toliet paper are more to do with health and safety then religeon. Its just spun out of contents to create a good story.

 

[rathi]

For example, the high school in my area has a ban on Satanic jewelry. And while it is perfectly fine for Christian students to wear their Jesus shirts and crosses around their necks, a child who wears an inverted crucifix will be banned to wear such jewelry, EVEN in a public school that shouldn't be favoring one religious faith or sect above any other.

Satanism is legally recognized, so that is serious breach of the constitution. If you really cared about it, you could easily threaten a lawsuit to get them to change the rule.

 

[Jerry]

I agree, why should goth kids be prevented from expressing themselves, or atheists, who are usually the subject of such bans?

I like Goth kids, they're lots of fun...I mean, anyone who dresses up along the same style and genre as every other Goth, and claims that they are unique in so doing, must have a good sense of humor.

 

[hypgnostic]

Well, I don't know what 'religious symbol' an atheist would have, but yeah.

Really? I see them on cars all the time. Haven't you seen those 'fish' symbols of Christ, that atheists have a larger shark or a fish with feet or 'darwin' on them? I would call those symbols for the atheist. I'd also call the 'ying & yang' symbol an atheist symbol. There are many Pagans who are atheist too. Any of the ancient Pagan symbols that are still around today don't refer to god, but are still symbols. I have a charm neckless with a tiny priapus symbol made of bronze. It's really special to me because of the artist who gave it to me. I saw a documentary about symbols the other day that said that the striped upward 'arrow' design on a soldiers jacket were derived from the Priapus symbol -- it's a symbol of male fertility. They were used for centures to mean anything masculine.

I saw a really funny bumper sticker the other day: 'God is coming. Stick out your tongue" -- hahah!!
:mrgreen:

 

[rqoi]

This is the symbol for Atheism by the way:

 

[rathi]

This is the symbol for Atheism by the way:

Atheism has no symbols.

 

[rqoi]

An international symbol for Atheism has long been needed. When American Atheists was formed in 1963, a contemporary scientific symbol was chosen; this acknowledges that only through the use of scientific analysis and free, open inquiry can humankind reach out for a better life.

Recognizing the new atomic era, but also emphasizing the truths of older scientific findings, the atomic whirl was chosen. The atom is still a distinguishing unit of all matter, the smallest particle of an element that can exist and still retain the properties of that element.

You may notice that one of the orbital in our symbol is broken, or open-ended. This demonstrates that while Atheists rely on the scientific method for learning about the cosmos and increasing our knowledge about nature, we know that "not all of the answers are in." We recognize that with new knowledge come new questions and areas for human inquiry and exploration.
That open orbital forms an "A" to represent Atheism. The small letter in the center represents of the first letter of the country in which an affiliated group is located. In our case, the "A" signifies American, and the symbol thus represents American Atheists.

American Atheists is the largest Atheist group in the world, so that's why I said that is the symbol for Atheism.

 

[rathi]

American Atheists is the largest Atheist group in the world, so that's why I said that is the symbol for Atheism.

Thats far overstepping your bounds. This atheist group does not represent the atheists of the world. If you want to say its the symbol of American Atheists, thats fine. Its shear arrogance to claim that all atheists accept this symbol.

 

[Cephus]

An international symbol for Atheism has long been needed.

No it hasn't, there is no symbol needed for something that doesn't represent anyone. That's like saying you need a symbol for people with red hair.

When American Atheists was formed in 1963, a contemporary scientific symbol was chosen; this acknowledges that only through the use of scientific analysis and free, open inquiry can humankind reach out for a better life.

Then that's the symbol for American Atheists, not for atheism. Atheism has no symbol, it's not a cohesive, organized group of people.

American Atheists is the largest Atheist group in the world, so that's why I said that is the symbol for Atheism.

And also why you're wrong.

 

[justone]

Then that's the symbol for American Atheists, not for atheism. Atheism has no symbol, it's not a cohesive, organized group of people.



.

Daylight Atheism

American Atheists

Secular Web: Atheism, Agnosticism, Naturalism, Skepticism and Secularism

Positive Atheism (since 1995) Join the Struggle Against Anti-Atheist Bigotry!

Daylight Atheism

Ebon Musings: Reflections Beneath the Milky Way

Capella’s Guide to Atheism - An Atheist’s Guide to Scripture and more…

Are they atheists or not? Yes or no? Does org stands for organization? Yes or no?

The statement of your post is : AA are not atheists.

1. Do I have to believe that AA are not atheists?
2.What is the difference between you and AA?
3.You are not wearing a uniform because you are working under cover, are you?
4. Has your undercover legend been blown up by exposing you belonging to millions of your comrades?
5. Are those millions some kind of exclusion in your army?
6. Are you following the chapter of your code saying that atheists are not allowed to have a symbol?
7. Do you really have to follow so strictly to the code of atheism?
8. Do all atheists have to follow the dogma established by your code?

 

[justone]

Then that's the symbol for American Atheists, not for atheism. Atheism has no symbol, it's not a cohesive, organized group of people.



.

Daylight Atheism

American Atheists

Secular Web: Atheism, Agnosticism, Naturalism, Skepticism and Secularism

Positive Atheism (since 1995) Join the Struggle Against Anti-Atheist Bigotry!

Daylight Atheism

Ebon Musings: Reflections Beneath the Milky Way

Capella’s Guide to Atheism - An Atheist’s Guide to Scripture and more…

Are they atheists or not? Yes or no? Does org stands for organization? Yes or no?

The statement of your post is : AA are not atheists.

1. Do I have to believe that AA are not atheists?
2.What is the difference between you and AA?
3.You are not wearing a uniform because you are working under cover, are you?
4. Has your undercover legend been blown up by exposing you belonging to millions of your comrades?
5. Are those millions some kind of exclusion in your army?
6. Are you following the chapter of your code saying that atheists are not allowed to have a symbol?
7. Do you really have to follow so strictly to the code of atheism?
8. Do all atheists have to follow the dogma established by your code?

 

[Cephus]

Are they atheists or not? Yes or no? Does org stands for organization? Yes or no?

They are some atheist groups. They do not represent all atheists, just their members. Unless you want to suggest that the Boy Scouts represent all male children, just because they are an organization of boys...

Come on, use some common sense.

 

[justone]

They are some atheist groups. They do not represent all atheists, just their members. Unless you want to suggest that the Boy Scouts represent all male children, just because they are an organization of boys...

Come on, use some common sense.

The Episcopal Church Welcomes You
Central Christian Church.Org - home - -
The International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church
Gaychurch.org: Affirming Gay and lesbian Christian (GLBT) Web Site



They are some theist groups. They do not represent all theists, just their members. Unless you want to suggest that the Boy Scouts represent all male children, just because they are an organization of boys...

Come on, use some common sense.

You cannot answer the direct questions, can you?
Are they atheists or not? Yes or no? Does org stands for organization? Yes or no?

The statement of your post is : AA are not atheists.

1. Do I have to believe that AA are not atheists?
2.What is the difference between you and AA?
3.You are not wearing a uniform because you are working under cover, are you?
4. Has your undercover legend been blown up by exposing you belonging to millions of your comrades?
5. Are those millions some kind of exclusion in your army?
6. Are you following the chapter of your code saying that atheists are not allowed to have a symbol?
7. Do you really have to follow so strictly to the code of atheism?
8. Do all atheists have to follow the dogma established by your code?

 

[Cephus]

No one ever said that AA are not atheists, we simply said that AA does not speak for all atheists, nor that their symbols represent all atheists. All of that is undeniably true.

Try again.

 

[rathi]

1. Do I have to believe that AA are not atheists?

No they are.

2.What is the difference between you and AA?

I'm not a member.

3.You are not wearing a uniform because you are working under cover, are you?

Whats that mean?

4. Has your undercover legend been blown up by exposing you belonging to millions of your comrades?

No. I am glad to see that many adults have managed to avoid blind faith. My atheism is not something that I hide. They are not my comrades though.

5. Are those millions some kind of exclusion in your army?

The only army I can remotely claim is "mine" in any sense is the word is the US army. And thats just because I pay some of their funding.

6. Are you following the chapter of your code saying that atheists are not allowed to have a symbol?

No, I'm reasonably stating that claiming that all atheists have a symbol is false. Most babies are born atheists, but they don't even have the intellectual capacity to understand symbols.

7. Do you really have to follow so strictly to the code of atheism?

There is no code of atheism.

8. Do all atheists have to follow the dogma established by your code?

Their is no dogma and there is no code.

 

[justone]

No they are.
I'm not a member.

Whats that mean?
No. I am glad to see that many adults have managed to avoid blind faith. My atheism is not something that I hide. They are not my comrades though.

The only army I can remotely claim is "mine" in any sense is the word is the US army. And thats just because I pay some of their funding.
No, I'm reasonably stating that claiming that all atheists have a symbol is false. Most babies are born atheists, but they don't even have the intellectual capacity to understand symbols.

There is no code of atheism.
Their is no dogma and there is no code.

Ooh, I guess my logic is getting sucked out again… I guess you’ve come to help Cephus because you know that you have the double advantage arguing logic to me…

On other hand I have never promised to relay on logic.

You see, the meaning of my short exchange with Cephus was to demonstrate by facts that if statements made by Cephus indented to show that atheism did not have organization and symbols, the same statements could be used to show that theism did not have organization and symbols.
Thus you can subtract ‘a’ from a-theism in your statement, and read how your own arguments, when reconciled with facts demonstrate, that theists do not have symbols and organization in the same way as atheists do not have symbols and organization/

At the same time you are very attractive and I may spend some time with you:

You are saying:

No, I'm reasonably stating that claiming that all atheists have a symbol is false.
1. I have not made a statement about all atheists. Please don’t do such things to me.
2. My statement is that atheism has organization and symbols. Theism has organization and symbols and some theists do not have symbols and many theists have very different symbols.
3. You immediately draw a symbol to contradict to your statement that you don’t draw symbols:
Most babies are born atheists, but they don't even have the intellectual capacity to understand symbols.
I am not recalling an atheist who have not been drawing ‘’babies are born atheists’’ in this or that form as a symbol of his/her religion. Not all theists have a symbol, and not all symbols of theists are the same, but still we have the same symbol for the prevailing majority of atheists. You can draw a picture of the baby, you can draw letters, - it is still a symbol with the same meaning.
‘’Atheists rely on the scientific method for learning about the cosmos and increasing our knowledge about nature ‘’– this is the symbol excepted by AA according to a member of AA. I bet it is your symbol too. Do you rely on the scientific method for learning about the cosmos and increasing our knowledge about nature? Yes or no?
Well, with your double power over me your logic is unbeatable. I just don’t understand why are you saying ‘MOST babes are born atheists,’ -do you we see some genetic racial division in the human race?
The logic of the symbol ‘all babies are born atheists’ is unbeatable.
Anyone can look and see that babes are born atheists - if one does not want to abandon logic and rational. I have not seen a theist yet, who using logic could argue to the symbol. It is like your cross symbol against werewolves in you hand –scared they all run away. (On other hand it show that theists do have logic too and they can see the obvious)
My dear, we are so different, I don’t know how we can establish a communication. I do not rely on logic. And you do the opposite.
Let me whisper in you ear, it is logically correct and everyone can see that babes are born atheists, but it is not true. There is no logic here, just the fact. Fact is a symbol of a theist. If one ever decided to take a look, step by step, how really babies are born and how their intellect is developing, - one would see we are born with unconditional faith in a superior being and this faith and existence of the being who is superior to us is the only condition of us developing a human intellect. I know it is just my hope that you would accept a fact instead of obvious logic, because most of the atheists hate facts and education, and I have found it is extremely difficult to convert an atheist. I just want to outline our difference. May be this is why you are so attractive, as an opposite pole of a magnet for me.

You see, people always knew that according logic and rational the Sun was turning around the earth. Everyone could see. It was absolutely illogical and irrational to suppose that the Earth was turning around the Sun and it was spinning under you.
You see, even now, at this, moment if your little sun would ask mommy, how could it be- you would have no clue how to show it for him to see with his own eyes. I know how. You laugh at people who ridiculed Galileo and I am saying you are one of them.

Of course, I am not the one who all over suddenly has discovered how the babies are born, and not the doctors who wrote books about it in the last decades are not neither. If you ever decided to take a look you would see it had been an old knowledge of humanity, long before you came with all your hatred to facts and education and have started tearing out and gluing together pages and even burning the old books in Moscow, in Beijin , Berlin, and elsewhere measuring scalps of Negroids and Arians, writing your new books and spending billions to spread your hatred around the globe.
Some race of humans has blind faith and some race of humans has no faith your books, -- there is always a group of humans who just have to feel superiority towards other humans. Neo humans, Neo Arians, kozloeby...
Well, if there was no evil this world would not be perfect, and God’s plan would not be perfect. But God has chosen the perfect world.
Logic is your master and you pray it. My Master is the Heavenly Father and logic is my servant. I don’t pray to a servant.

 

[rathi]

You see, the meaning of my short exchange with Cephus was to demonstrate by facts that if statements made by Cephus indented to show that atheism did not have organization and symbols, the same statements could be used to show that theism did not have organization and symbols.

Thats correct. Theism is not monolithic. People worships different gods, and even those that believe in the same gods don't worship the same. That said, many forms of theism are highly organized and do use symbols. For example, the cross is symbol that permeates Christianity.

My statement is that atheism has organization and symbols.

No it doesn't. I an atheist and I belong to no organization and there are no symbols for my thoughts.

Theism has organization and symbols and some theists do not have symbols and many theists have very different symbols.

correct.

You immediately draw a symbol to contradict to your statement that you don’t draw symbols:

No I haven't. Quote it.

I am not recalling an atheist who have not been drawing ‘’babies are born atheists’’ in this or that form as a symbol of his/her religion. Not all theists have a symbol, and not all symbols of theists are the same, but still we have the same symbol for the prevailing majority of atheists. You can draw a picture of the baby, you can draw letters, - it is still a symbol with the same meaning.

Thats not what rqoi and I were discussing. The definition of symbol that we discussed was a picture that signified a specific group. Other examples for this definition include the cross, american flag, hammer and sickle, skull and crossbones.

this is the symbol excepted by AA according to a member of AA. I bet it is your symbol too. Do you rely on the scientific method for learning about the cosmos and increasing our knowledge about nature? Yes or no?

Most adult atheists agree with that statement. However, all of the child atheists do not accept that statement. They don't even know what science is.

Well, with your double power over me your logic is unbeatable. I just don’t understand why are you saying ‘MOST babes are born atheists,’ -do you we see some genetic racial division in the human race?
The logic of the symbol ‘all babies are born atheists’ is unbeatable.

You are correct again. I amend my statement to say "....all babies..."

If one ever decided to take a look, step by step, how really babies are born and how their intellect is developing, - one would see we are born with unconditional faith in a superior being and this faith and existence of the being who is superior to us is the only condition of us developing a human intellect.

Thats completely unfounded. I did not understand the concept of a divine being until explained to me. All knowledge of the divine is spread through humans. There isn't a single recorded instance of people independently discovering the same god. No child can ever speak about god unless they are taught first.

I know it is just my hope that you would accept a fact instead of obvious logic, because most of the atheists hate facts and education, and I have found it is extremely difficult to convert an atheist. I just want to outline our difference. May be this is why you are so attractive, as an opposite pole of a magnet for me.

You have no facts to support your arguments. Facts are things that we can observe. I actually like both facts and education.

You see, people always knew that according logic and rational the Sun was turning around the earth. Everyone could see. It was absolutely illogical and irrational to suppose that the Earth was turning around the Sun and it was spinning under you.
You see, even now, at this, moment if your little sun would ask mommy, how could it be- you would have no clue how to show it for him to see with his own eyes. I know how. You laugh at people who ridiculed Galileo and I am saying you are one of them.

I can prove that the earth revolves around the earth. I can give my son a telescope, teach him how to use, how to calculate orbits. So can anyone else with a telescope.

Of course, I am not the one who all over suddenly has discovered how the babies are born, and not the doctors who wrote books about it in the last decades are not neither. If you ever decided to take a look you would see it had been an old knowledge of humanity, long before you came with all your hatred to facts and education and have started tearing out and gluing together pages and even burning the old books in Moscow, in Beijin , Berlin, and elsewhere measuring scalps of Negroids and Arians, writing your new books and spending billions to spread your hatred around the globe.

What the heck are you talking about? I haven't done anything you just accused me of except for learn how babies are born.

Some race of humans has blind faith and some race of humans has no faith your books, -- there is always a group of humans who just have to feel superiority towards other humans. Neo humans, Neo Arians, kozloeby...
Well, if there was no evil this world would not be perfect, and God’s plan would not be perfect. But God has chosen the perfect world.
Logic is your master and you pray it. My Master is the Heavenly Father and logic is my servant. I don’t pray to a servant.

The nice thing about science and logic, is that it really benefits humanity. The only reason we can even discuss this is because some guys used good logic and engineering to build the internet. It also gives us medicine, cars, and other things that make human life better. Religion can't even come close to technology.

 

[justone]

No it doesn't. I an atheist and I belong to no organization and there are no symbols for my thoughts.

I know theists who do not belong to an organization and ‘’have no symbols in their thoughts’’. Does it prove that their theism is not a religion?

I have told you, any time you want to make a statement in the light of the fact of ATHEISM.ORGanizations and the symbols like AA – your statement will be also true if it is applied to theists. For how long you will keep on shooting yourself in a foot?

No I haven't. Quote it. The definition of symbol that we discussed was a picture that signified a specific group. Other examples for this definition include the cross, american flag, hammer and sickle, skull and crossbones.

Oh, how deep is valley laying between you and me, my darling, I would never be able to hold your hand. You want crossbones? - let me see if my PC can do:1 الطفل ملحد
or if you wish:婴儿无神论者

Which one of the 2 different bones would you like for you symbol? Would you like scribes like in Egyptian pyramids?

The meaning of the crossbones and the drawing of crossbones cannot be separated.

Most adult atheists agree with that statement.

Thus it becomes your symbol we recognize you by. As soon as there is the unifying meaning there is a symbol of recognition of those who are unified by the meaning. Atheists are recognized as on organization unified by the meaning of “”babies are atheists”” as their symbol. In your computer any picture or cross bones look exactly the same: 0100111000100100. There is no difference. I don’t blame you, math is a very Christian thing, not too many atheists are capable of grasping the concept.

However, all of the child atheists do not accept that statement.

Of course, because they are not atheists. “” Child atheists”” – you are so cute, even if you are a pure evil. I will pray for your children, for them to have love and joy of childhood. They give unconditional love and their joy is to receive unconditional love. Jesus Loves the Little Children > Lyrics | Clare H. Woolston

Beatles All You Need Is Love lyrics

Thats completely unfounded.
I did not understand the concept of a divine being until explained to me. All knowledge of the divine is spread through humans. There isn't a single recorded instance of people independently discovering the same god. No child can ever speak about god unless they are taught first.

You are replying to your logic but to none of my words. My words are: were are born with unconditional faith in a superior being and this faith and existence of the being who is superior to us is the only condition of us developing a human intellect.

You do not understand concept of divine and God still, whoever has explained it to you. But still you had became a human only because you had the unconditional faith in a being who was superior to you, when you were a baby and you could not even talk. Without a prior existence of the being you would never be able to talk and develop any concept.

You have no facts to support your arguments. Facts are things that we can observe. I actually like both facts and education.

You are mixing up things again. I submitted no arguments and no logic. I submitted facts. And I told you where to look if you wanted to observe them. Instead of tearing out and gluing together pages of the old books and burning them in Moscow, in Beijin, Berlin, and elsewhere, instead of measuring scalps of Negroids and Arians, writing your new books and spending billions of $$ to spread your hatred around the globe, you still have a chance to find some knowledge on the far dusty shelves behind your shiny books of hatred.

I can prove that the earth revolves around the earth. I can give my son a telescope, teach him how to use, how to calculate orbits. So can anyone else with a telescope.

You would tell you son: you have to wait until I get a telescope for you, and you have to learn how to use it and learn math and calculus to calculate orbits. I will pray for your son. Sweat heart, the earth is here, and the sun is here and you can see stars. What do you need a telescope for?

What the heck are you talking about? I haven't done anything you just accused me of except for learn how babies are born.

Darling, I can not tell you how babies are born, I don’t know, and if you tell me how I would not understand too much. I am talking about your hatred to simple facts and the need of atheists to tear out and glue together pages of old books and to burn them in atheistic Moscow, in Beijing , fascist Berlin, and elsewhere , and your need to measure scalps of Negroids and Arians, and spending billions of $$ made by slaves of GULAG in order to spread your hatred around the globe.

Listen, it is quite clear and well known how the brain, body and human intellect develop after you give the birth. You hate to know simple facts - that we are born with no human intellect, none, 0, zilch, - and so we go for months, - all of us; and we all - with no exclusion - may OR may not develop the human intellect. And the only condition of developing a human intellect is our unconditional belief, faith in a being who is superior to us and takes care of us, and such superior being has to exist prior to our birth. Do you understand, we are 100% animals, monkeys when we are born? We remain monkeys for months; and if you grew up among monkeys (they are not superior to you ) and were nurtured by monkeys for a few years you would not even be walking up right, NEVER! You would loose any chance to develop speech and reasoning even if you are brought back to humans. But you would have a good chance to become a good monkey (because your brain is superior to theirs). This is the power of your brain and its interaction with your senses and body. All your power of developing speech would go into developing features of a monkey, like jumping in trees. Like a blind child overdevelops other senses and coordinates them with brain forever. God’s work is fascinating. Of course, one has to be a believer in order to be fascinated and interested. Any mom is a being superior to her baby, and no baby would develop a human intellect if the baby does not have unconditional faith into a superior being. We, theists define God as a being superior to us.

The nice thing about science and logic, is that it really benefits humanity.
The only reason we can even discuss this is because some guys used good logic and engineering to build the internet.

It is irrelevant to my statement and its facts, but anyway:
Our time is distinguished by wonderful achievements in the fields of scientific understanding and the technical application of those insights. Who would not be cheered by this? But let us not forget that human knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life. Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to .. Moses and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind.
What these blessed men have given us we must guard and try to keep alive with all our strength if humanity is not to lose its dignity, the security of its existence, and its joy in living.
o Written statement (September 1937) as quoted in Albert Einstein, The Human Side: New Glimpses From His Archives (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman ISBN 0691023689

Jesus is my savior, he gives me dignity, the security of my existance, and joy of living. And he ranks for me over all your good guys building gas cameras and human body burning devices for inferior races, IED and WMD etc. in order to benefit my humanity.

Religion can't even come close to technology.

Of course, my admiration of God makes me human, when your admiration of technology makes you just a logical machine, - very simple and primitive in its construction.

BTW, in the rampage of your hatred you had torn and thrown away and burned the books with the records of the fact that ALL the math and physics had been founded by God fearing people and the greatest extend of math and physics has been developed by God fearing people. You can burn books, but cannot throw out the physics and develop a new math. I watch your efforts and I am laughing – remember you are a logical machine, machines do not create anything. And God has made me in his own image of the Creator.

It also gives us medicine, cars, and other things that make human life better.

This is like a wall of separation between you and me.

My life is no better than life of Aristotle or King Solomon, the wisest the richest and the most powerful and educated man and, - with all 4 computers in my house, - I am not any smarter than Sir Isaak Newton. Are you sure your life is better than life of your grandma?

Internet and cars do not make my life better, - if I could only break the wall between you and me, and take your hand and walk with you to a place where we would not see any cars and computers, - just the ocean, trees and rocks, and stars and you and me, where I would be able to show you how the earth is spinning under us and how Newton wrote his first law coping Aquinas first argument of existence of God, and to tell you how beautiful you are and there is no need for you to be on the side of evil when you are loved so much and God is so perfect that no cars or computers can ever reach his perfection. BEATLES - I WANT TO HOLD YOUR HAND Lyrics
What is the benefit of cars and computers for me if I cannot hold your hand and there is such a wall between you and me?

 

[rathi]

I know theists who do not belong to an organization and ‘’have no symbols in their thoughts’’. Does it prove that their theism is not a religion?

Not all theists are religious. For example, believing in Deism does not require one belong to a religion.

I have told you, any time you want to make a statement in the light of the fact of ATHEISM.ORGanizations and the symbols like AA – your statement will be also true if it is applied to theists. For how long you will keep on shooting yourself in a foot?

Some atheist organizations have qualities that mirror a religion. However, since all religions are based around some kind of deity, religion is not really the correct term.

Thus it becomes your symbol we recognize you by. As soon as there is the unifying meaning there is a symbol of recognition of those who are unified by the meaning. Atheists are recognized as on organization unified by the meaning of “”babies are atheists”” as their symbol.

You still don't understand which definition of symbol I was discussing. You are referring to a literary definition of symbols and symbolism. The definition I was referring to is an actual picture that represents an organization. Use the first definition of symbol at dictionary.com.

Of course, because they are not atheists. “” Child atheists”” – you are so cute, even if you are a pure evil. I will pray for your children, for them to have love and joy of childhood. They give unconditional love and their joy is to receive unconditional love.

I don't plan on having any kids. And I'm hardly pure evil. 2 soldiers in Iraq are alive today, because of actions I took.

were are born with unconditional faith in a superior being and this faith and existence of the being who is superior to us is the only condition of us developing a human intellect.

I provided a direct counter-example to your claim. Furthermore, you have no evidence to support your claims. All current knowledge in the field of psychology supports my claim, nothing supports yours.

You do not understand concept of divine and God still, whoever has explained it to you. But still you had became a human only because you had the unconditional faith in a being who was superior to you, when you were a baby and you could not even talk. Without a prior existence of the being you would never be able to talk and develop any concept.

I had no unconditional faith in any higher power. You continue to make absurd claims without any basis. I learned how do my times tables before I ever understood what the word "god" meant.

You are mixing up things again. I submitted no arguments and no logic. I submitted facts. And I told you where to look if you wanted to observe them. Instead of tearing out and gluing together pages of the old books and burning them in Moscow, in Beijin, Berlin, and elsewhere, instead of measuring scalps of Negroids and Arians, writing your new books and spending billions of $$ to spread your hatred around the globe, you still have a chance to find some knowledge on the far dusty shelves behind your shiny books of hatred.

I have never burned a book in Berlin, measure the scalp of a negroid or arian or spent billions of dollars. Where are you getting this ideas from ?

You would tell you son: you have to wait until I get a telescope for you, and you have to learn how to use it and learn math and calculus to calculate orbits. I will pray for your son. Sweat heart, the earth is here, and the sun is here and you can see stars. What do you need a telescope for?

You cannot see very many stars without a telescope. A telescope lets you see stars that are invisible to the human eye. It also lets you get much more detail on cosmic objects, thereby granting more knowledge.

Listen, it is quite clear and well known how the brain, body and human intellect develop after you give the birth. You hate to know simple facts - that we are born with no human intellect, none, 0, zilch, - and so we go for months, - all of us; and we all - with no exclusion - may OR may not develop the human intellect. And the only condition of developing a human intellect is our unconditional belief, faith in a being who is superior to us and takes care of us, and such superior being has to exist prior to our birth. Do you understand, we are 100% animals, monkeys when we are born? We remain monkeys for months; and if you grew up among monkeys (they are not superior to you ) and were nurtured by monkeys for a few years you would not even be walking up right, NEVER! You would loose any chance to develop speech and reasoning even if you are brought back to humans. But you would have a good chance to become a good monkey (because your brain is superior to theirs). This is the power of your brain and its interaction with your senses and body. All your power of developing speech would go into developing features of a monkey, like jumping in trees. Like a blind child overdevelops other senses and coordinates them with brain forever. God’s work is fascinating. Of course, one has to be a believer in order to be fascinated and interested. Any mom is a being superior to her baby, and no baby would develop a human intellect if the baby does not have unconditional faith into a superior being. We, theists define God as a being superior to us.

Children learn from their parents because they can see, hear, feel and touch them. All you can ever do to learn from god is read some ancient book that has been edited and translated by humans.

o Written statement (September 1937) as quoted in Albert Einstein, The Human Side: New Glimpses From His Archives (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman ISBN 0691023689

Einstein was wrong. I don't put blind faith in his statements. Technology has done things that religion cannot. The current American lifestyle only exists because of scientific achievements.

BTW, in the rampage of your hatred you had torn and thrown away and burned the books with the records of the fact that ALL the math and physics had been founded by God fearing people and the greatest extend of math and physics has been developed by God fearing people. You can burn books, but cannot throw out the physics and develop a new math. I watch your efforts and I am laughing – remember you are a logical machine, machines do not create anything. And God has made me in his own image of the Creator.

Newton believed in nonsense like alchemy and the occult but still did great science and math. That doesn't mean that alchemy and the occult have a grain of truth to them either. And machines create almost everything in our modern society. Or did you make that computer and all its pieces you are using by hand?

My life is no better than life of Aristotle or King Solomon, the wisest the richest and the most powerful and educated man and, - with all 4 computers in my house, - I am not any smarter than Sir Isaak Newton. Are you sure your life is better than life of your grandma?

My life is better than my grandma's. She lost her daughter because of an blood clot that the hospital couldn't treat back then. My friend today survived the problem in a modern hospital.

 

[justone]

believing in Deism does not require one belong to a religion.

I asked you not to shoot yourself in the foot, so you decided to shoot yourself in the head. Didn’t work, did it? It is because God had chosen the perfect world where evil couldn’t die.

However, since all religions are based around some kind of deity, religion is not really the correct term.

A-theism. It is not about deity. It is not about faith. It is not about having faith or not having faith. It is not about absence of faith or presence of faith. It is all about and regarding and in connection and in relation and in reference to God.

You still don't understand which definition of symbol I was discussing. The definition I was referring to is an actual picture that represents an organization. Use the first definition of symbol at dictionary.com.

You cannot discuss one definition and ignore others. What is wrong with the 3rd definition?
But even if it is #1 – where do you see it says anything about actual picture? – I did shown how graphics “babies are atheists’’ followed all rules of a drawing.

‘’From the most general perspective, a symbol is a communication means: it is a graphical, written, vocal or other physical object which is used to the representation of another, more complex object, or an object property.”
‘’An actual picture’’ represents only one organisations of humans – artists.

I don't plan on having any kids.

I guess, since you don’t plan to have any children and you need no love, children should not grow up experiencing a joy of love.

And I'm hardly pure evil. 2 soldiers in Iraq are alive today, because of actions I took.

Did the soldiers sell their souls to you? What is this sentiment about 2 soldiers? There is no God, no evil, - whose approval are you seeking for your rational and logical actions?

All current knowledge in the field of psychology supports my claim, nothing supports yours.

I referred to brain –neurology- physiology - medical studies. I have no reason not to trust you about psychology: as Ernst Mach said once about Freud's psychologists : 'These people want to use the vagina as a telescope through which to view the world. That is not its natural function; it's too narrow.' Does psychology spreads its worldview to new born babies now? Mom, your baby is crying, you need to bring him to a shrink.

I had no unconditional faith in any higher power. You continue to make absurd claims without any basis.

I know, as all atheists you have a memory of being a baby, of what you had and of what you did not have. It is the self conscience of atheists crawling out of a vagina with a telescope.

I have never burned a book in Berlin, measure the scalp of a negroid or arian or spent billions of dollars.

You have to take responsibility for actions of atheists and atheism - in the same way as I take responsibility and pride for actions and history of Christianity.

You cannot see very many stars without a telescope.

It proves that you have no clue how to show earth spinning without a telescope – as I stated.

Children learn from their parents because they can see, hear, feel and touch them.

Of course, I am stunned by your statement because it represents a Christian belief, but I am afraid you are intentionally using it in order to divert attention from the conditions for a baby to develop a human intellect to the means of baby learning.
For children in order to learn and for babies to develop a human intellect 2 conditions have to be met:
1. There MUST be an intellect superior to them, interacting with them. 2. They MUST have faith in the supreme intellect.
If any of these 2 conditions are not met a baby does not have a chance to develop a human intellect. Whatever your books of hatred say – it is a quite self evident.
You start learning tables because your mom tells you to do (or brings you to a teacher) and you have faith in what you are told by a superior being. You mom tells to wash your hands and you happily obey the order. (One day you start questioning – but it is a separate subject.)
This experience of the unconditional faith exists in all of us as the basis of human intellect. God is not stupid.

All you can ever do to learn from god is read some ancient book that has been edited and translated by humans.

Back to your almost Christian statement: ‘’Children learn from their parents because they can see, hear, feel and touch them.’’

A Christian would say: Nihil est in intellectu quod non sit prius in sensu." Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses – St. Thomas Aquinas. Nothing is on the paper which was not first in the intellect. –justone.


Step 1. It has to exist in order to be sensed. 2. It has to be sensed in order to be in intellect. 3 It has to be in the intellect in order to be on the paper. Thus God exists as it is written in the Bible.

Whatever you’ve learned through senses from the existance of your teacher and your mom ,exists in you intellect first and then you put it on the paper. Thus devil exists and he is your teacher. You don’t trust the Bible but you trust books specifically aimed against the Bible. If you trusted neutral books you would have no reason not to trust the Bible. You trust to specific books in the same way as you belive that deists are not theists, that you need a telescop to show earth turning, that new born babies have human intellect etc. Your believes are blind.

Einstein was wrong. I don't put blind faith in his statements.

He was wrong because you say so. There was no appeal to his authority on my side – I just could not express my conviction in any better way. The quote is like a symbol of my organization.

Technology has done things that religion cannot. The current American lifestyle only exists because of scientific achievements.

The current American lifestyle exists due to the rules and obligations American people self-imposed on themselves. The freedom of religion and other freedoms had attracted creative people from other countries and had created conditions for creation by free people. The rules and obligations are rooted in the Christian religion - like the self evident fact that God created people and he created them equal, and gave them basic equal rights - and such fact had to be in the base of all rules.

On the contrary, the Soviet Union accepted atheism as the state religion and that religion did not have any freedom from the g-nt. The Soviet Union had huge technological advances but it did make human life horrible.

(Of course, I am all for atheism to exist and to be respected by the g-nt in US because it serves God’s design.)

Newton believed in nonsense like alchemy and the occult but still did great science and math. That doesn't mean that alchemy and the occult have a grain of truth to them either.

It is another typical twist of the atheistic propaganda. Newton did not believe in alchemy and the occult. He believed only in God. He had no other believes, not even in physics. It is you who can believe in nonsense. Newtons check things out. Sometimes they discovery new laws and publish them, sometimes they hit dead ends and do not publish papers. A very few letters of a new equation are born out of tons of paper and years of experiments and wasted material. Should I ridicule today’s occult of the cold fusion? You have no clue about cold fusion experiments, do you? "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." - Galileo Galilee.

And machines create almost everything in our modern society. Or did you make that computer and all its pieces you are using by hand?

Machines do not create anything – they assemble or disassemble. There is no part of a machine which was not on the paper first. ‘’Nothing is on the paper which was not first in the intellect.’’ –justone.Computers do not create anything, they are dead pieces of metal and plastic – hardware. Can you create a simple program for a computer? At least as simple as the one running in your head? Can you create a new computer language? Do you think computers create computer languges?

Alchemy gave birth to chemistry. You may remind me that all chemistry was founded by God fearing people, but I stated ‘’ALL the math and physics had been founded by God fearing people and the greatest extend of math and physics has been developed by God fearing people’’.

My life is better than my grandma's. She lost her daughter because of an blood clot that the hospital couldn't treat back then.

You grandma had happiness of having children and grandchildren. You happiness is based only on not having children. I guess, cars mean a lot more to you. And death in a car accident makes you a lot happier than death from a blood clot. Tell a mom who’s lost a teenage daughter in a car crash – “be happy - it is not because of blood clot.” And death from a nuclear explosion and radiation is better and richer and more exciting for an evil nature than death from a bullet or aging. Of course, Einstein and I are wrong for you. We are of a different nature, of a different organization.

 

[rathi]

I asked you not to shoot yourself in the foot, so you decided to shoot yourself in the head. Didn’t work, did it? It is because God had chosen the perfect world where evil couldn’t die.

That is does not respond to what i quoted. Deism is not an organized belief, the article you stated says so itself.

the fact that deism remained a personal philosophy and never became an organized movement

A-theism. It is not about deity. It is not about faith. It is not about having faith or not having faith. It is not about absence of faith or presence of faith. It is all about and regarding and in connection and in relation and in reference to God.

Atheism is purely defined as "no belief" A meaning without, theism meaning a "belief". Atheism can occur for many different reasons. That doesn't change that all of those without belief are atheists.

ou cannot discuss one definition and ignore others.

Yes I can. If I say "Clive Owen was really cool in Sin City" I can ignore the fact that his body temperature was not actually cooler than normal in the movie.

Did the soldiers sell their souls to you? What is this sentiment about 2 soldiers? There is no God, no evil, - whose approval are you seeking for your rational and logical actions?

I seek my own approval and societie's.

I referred to brain –neurology- physiology - medical studies. I have no reason not to trust you about psychology: as Ernst Mach said once about Freud's psychologists : 'These people want to use the vagina as a telescope through which to view the world. That is not its natural function; it's too narrow.' Does psychology spreads its worldview to new born babies now? Mom, your baby is crying, you need to bring him to a shrink.

I agree that Freud was very wrong about many concepts. However, modern psychology hardly relies on Freud anymore either. The point, is that there is absolutely no data in child studies of kids discovering a deity independently.

I know, as all atheists you have a memory of being a baby, of what you had and of what you did not have. It is the self conscience of atheists crawling out of a vagina with a telescope.

I do remember my first discussion about the word and concept of a god. And my families and friends memories support my own. As for the second statement, I'd suggest debating in more clear terms. Poetry is far too easy to misinterpret.

You have to take responsibility for actions of atheists and atheism - in the same way as I take responsibility and pride for actions and history of Christianity.

No I don't. May I assume you don't believe that unicorns with magical healing powers roam the earth? Do you want to take responsibility for all of those who don't believe in unicorns? Just because I share one belief with someone, does not mean I share all beliefs. And I put you under no obligation to take responsibility for Christianity's actions. Do you want to take responsibility for the Crusades, Inquisition, persecution of the Jews, ec.?

1. There MUST be an intellect superior to them, interacting with them

Thats true, babies learn from those who have already developed a more heightened intellect.

They MUST have faith in the supreme intellect.

My parents, while quite intelligent, are not supreme intellects. Nor did I always take my parents at their word. I ignored their warnings about the hot toaster, I tested it for myself. After being burned, I learned a lesson stronger than any words could explain.

This experience of the unconditional faith exists in all of us as the basis of human intellect. God is not stupid.

The only thing I need to accept on blind faith is that my 5 senses work and than I can communicate with others. I only accepted others words because my mind was not yet developed enough to handle critical thinking. Once my brain had physically developed enough, I struck out on my own.

Your argument is flawed at its core. We both know that blind trust in our parents when we are children is flawed, as we both know that our parents told of things that weren't true and made mistakes. Why should put trust in a deity considering that our earlier faith was misplaced? And unlike god, we can actually put what our parents say to the test. I can touch the toaster to see if it will hurt me. Its impossible to do that with god.

Whatever you’ve learned through senses from the existance of your teacher and your mom ,exists in you intellect first and then you put it on the paper. Thus devil exists and he is your teacher. You don’t trust the Bible but you trust books specifically aimed against the Bible. If you trusted neutral books you would have no reason not to trust the Bible. You trust to specific books in the same way as you belive that deists are not theists, that you need a telescop to show earth turning, that new born babies have human intellect etc. Your believes are blind.

I have never claimed you need a telescope to see the earth turn or that new born babies have a full intellect. Unfounded strawman argument. The difference between the books I read and the bible, is that I can sense the things I read about in books and see for myself. If I read about Thermite, I can duplicate the reaction and make my own choice.

He was wrong because you say so. There was no appeal to his authority on my side – I just could not express my conviction in any better way. The quote is like a symbol of my organization.

Considering that their is no objective way to determine human good, the argument is hard to construct. That said, I'd rather be able to survive to age 70 than have the option of joining some organization with thousands of years old rules.

On the contrary, the Soviet Union accepted atheism as the state religion and that religion did not have any freedom from the g-nt. The Soviet Union had huge technological advances but it did make human life horrible.

The life of the average Russian is now a lot better than the serfs that lived under the Tsar. The USSR certainly was quite nasty, no argument their. Also, I disagree with using the government to make religion illegal.

Newton did not believe in alchemy and the occult.

wrong
Isaac Newton's occult studies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should I ridicule today’s occult of the cold fusion? You have no clue about cold fusion experiments, do you?

Yes I do. Cold fusion is actually possible. However, its very difficult to do and requires more energy to create than you get as output. Therefor, cold fusion is not useful as an energy source currently. I'd ridicule anyone who claimed that cold fusion is a good source of energy today, given the current state of evidence.

You grandma had happiness of having children and grandchildren. You happiness is based only on not having children. I guess, cars mean a lot more to you. And death in a car accident makes you a lot happier than death from a blood clot. Tell a mom who’s lost a teenage daughter in a car crash – “be happy - it is not because of blood clot.” And death from a nuclear explosion and radiation is better and richer and more exciting for an evil nature than death from a bullet or aging.

Life expectancy is way up from previous times. We have developed much better ways to save people than to kill them.

Of course, Einstein and I are wrong for you. We are of a different nature, of a different organization.

You cannot speak for Einstein.

 

[justone]

Deism is not an organized belief, the article you stated says so itself.

It does not say so, but even if it did – it would not change the point – whatever can be applied to organization/no organization of theists the same can be applied to organization/no organization of atheists. It does not matter that the most strict and obvious organization of atheists – the USSR – the empire of evil – has been partially dismantled – it does not mean that atheists are not capable into recreating its organization again and anywhere. (Especially gouging from your POVs)

Atheism is purely defined as "no belief"

Nobody can find a single definition of atheism not involving deity or God. Everyone has to ask – why would atheists have to spin and twist and lie so much?

That doesn't change that all of those without belief are atheists.

Again, there is some race of humans who have no believes. And so you go in circles. Everyone has to ask – why would atheists have to spin and twist and lie so much.

Yes I can. If I say "Clive Owen was really cool in Sin City" I can ignore the fact that his body temperature was not actually cooler than normal in the movie.

You avoid answering the direct questions and statements and you hide behind semantics. Meanings of definitions do not depend on language. The discussed definitions and statements have the same meaning if same translated into, let's say Russian, language, while your semantic game does not have any meaning in another language. ''She is cool or hot'' expression has nothing to do to temperature or heat/cold if translated into another language, so it depends only on English, but not on the meaning. Atheism is organized and it has symbols and a set of dogmas, - like”” babies are atheists”, “atheism means no belief”, “atheism has no symbols” etc. Atheism is a religion.

The point, is that there is absolutely no data in child studies of kids discovering a deity independent

I have never mentioned or meant kids discovering a deity independently.

No I don't. May I assume you don't believe that unicorns with magical healing powers roam the earth? Do you want to take responsibility for all of those who don't believe in unicorns?

I don't know what you are talking about. If it is about heretical magical claims - Inquisition did a pretty good job investigating the claims and making claimers to submit empirical proof..

Do you want to take responsibility for the Crusades, Inquisition, persecution of the Jews, ec.?

I don't have a choice accepting Christianity. I do take full responsibility for Crusades and for achievements and mistakes of Inquisition. Of course, I do not take any responsibility for all piles of false accusations and lies spread by atheistic propaganda. And of course, Jews who are believers should and must hold me responsible. There is a quite of a dialog going on between people believing in Judaism and Christians. The essence of Christianity is to seek the truth and to repent, but not to hide behind piles of lies, like atheism does.

Thats true, babies learn from those who have already developed a more heightened intellect.

It may look like you may be getting the point; but it is difficult to believe knowing you, - somewhere you're going to circle back. ''A more heightened intellect'' from babies POV is an intellect superior to theirs. It is not a higher intellect - it is a superior intellect. And babies do not learn. In order to learn they have to develop a human intellect. Question: what had been the intellect existing before those who have already developed a more heightened intellect? You don't have to answer with another symbol of atheism - a progress of intellect. It is like you have higher IQ than Aristotle. Aren't you? You think you would do better in IQ tests than Aristotle or any of his students including Alexander of Macedon. Isn't it a nice fantasy?

My parents, while quite intelligent, are not supreme intellects. Nor did I always take my parents at their word. I ignored their warnings about the hot toaster, I tested it for myself. After being burned, I learned a lesson stronger than any words could explain.

You are changing the subject. I said - '' then you start questioning them - but it is another subject.'' Of course, they are not NOW. But they were THEN - when you were a baby, before you could reach the toaster.

The only thing I need to accept on blind faith is that my 5 senses work and than I can communicate with others.

Babies have no clue abut 5 senses. (As the matter of fact not all babies have all 5 senses.) They do not have faith in senses. They absorb and accept everything their senses bring into their brain, they do not sort or reject/accept the information - they unconditionally accept it. Babies have no choicer to have or not to have senses, to accept or not to accept the words - they have to have the blind faith - no ability to reject. God is not stupid.

I only accepted others words because my mind was not yet developed enough to handle critical thinking. Once my brain had physically developed enough, I struck out on my own.

Whatever is the reason (s) ''because'', the point is that you DID have to accept their words - no choice - you had to have the unconditional faith. THE POINT IS BABIES ARE NOT ATHESTS, BUT THEY HAVE TO HAVE UNCODITIONAL FAITH, TRUST AND LOVE TO A BEING WHO IS SUPERIOR TO THEM IN THEIR MINDS AND TAKES CARE OF THEM, AND THAT IS PURE 100% THEISM.

Your argument is flawed at its core. < >. Why should put trust in a deity considering that our earlier faith was misplaced?

DID I EVER SAY YOU SHOULD? It is just your logical deduction. The Christian belief says: laws of nature are not deductions from human intellect or human logic. See again steps 1, 2 and 3.
When I was 8 years old I conducted a simple experiment proving beyond any doubts that there was no God. BUT THIS IS ANOTHER SUBJECT.

And unlike god, we can actually put what our parents say to the test. I can touch the toaster to see if it will hurt me. Its impossible to do that with god.

We all have to put God to a test. BUT THIS IS ANOTHER SUBJECT.

I have never claimed you need a telescope to see the earth turn or that new born babies have a full intellect.

You did it twice about telescope. You said that babies were atheists. Are you saying now that atheists do not have a full intellect? At least once you are saying the truth.
Unfounded strawman argument.

The difference between the books I read and the bible, is that I can sense the things I read about in books and see for myself. If I read about Thermite, I can duplicate the reaction and make my own choice.

Well, if to apply it to my statements you are saying that there is nothing in intellect that was not first on paper and there is nothing in senses that was not first in intellect. Bring it to any neurologist, brain scientist or physiologist for a laugh. Since it is not in you habit to reply to statements and questions, I can think that you are trying to say that your intellect cannot check if the things said in the Bible are true. You want to replicate a chemical reaction of writing and playing a song : All You Need Is Love Lyrics The Beatles and you have a belief you can do it (write a song) by mixing chemicals. What are we humans after that in your belief? What does the Bible have to do to a chemical reaction?

That said, I'd rather be able to survive to age 70 than have the option of joining some organization with thousands of years old rules.

Who in the world told that was the choice? And how do you know that you have a chance to survive to age 70? And why would you think anything depends on joining some organization? One cannot join organization of Christianity, - it against the rules of the organization. All you have to do is to accept JC as your PERSONAL savior, the light shinning on your personal good and bad. And it is not thousands years old, - it is as old as our human intellect is.

The life of the average Russian is now a lot better than the serfs that lived under the Tsar.

Yeah, I guess if we did not abolish slavery, the life of the average slave today would be a lot better than it was 200 years ago. Tell it to tens of millions of Russians dead, tortured, and enslaved.

The USSR certainly was quite nasty, no argument their. Also, I disagree with using the government to make religion illegal.

As the matter of fact no religion was officially illegal in the USSR.

Life expectancy is way up from previous times.

You are changing the subject - and so we go in circles. You were talking about better and happier life, not about ''Life expectancy'' which has nothing to do to happiness. Depression, suicide rate, drugs and war on drugs, fear of nuclear explosion, - are very signs of happiness you grandma did not know.

We have developed much better ways to save people than to kill them.

?. And you are the one who is judging cold fusion?

You cannot speak for Einstein.

And I did not even try - He spoke for himself just 2 posts back.

 

[rathi]

It does not say so

I quoted the relevant passage.

whatever can be applied to organization/no organization of theists the same can be applied to organization/no organization of atheists.

We are finally in agreement. Atheists and theists can both be organized or unorganized depending on the situation.

Nobody can find a single definition of atheism not involving deity or God. Everyone has to ask – why would atheists have to spin and twist and lie so much?

Atheism is only needed as a definition because so many people believe in god. I you are once again making broad unfounded assumptions.

Meanings of definitions do not depend on language

Yes they do.

Atheism is organized and it has symbols and a set of dogmas, - like”” babies are atheists”, “atheism means no belief”, “atheism has no symbols” etc. Atheism is a religion.

You continue to make unfounded assumptions. There are atheists who do not accept the statements you made as truth. Atheism can be organized into a fashion similar to a religion in specific instances, but the concept as a whole cannot.

I have never mentioned or meant kids discovering a deity independently.

Yes, but if all kids had an ingrained faith in god, they would discover it independently. I looking at premises of your hypothesis, analyzed the consequences of such premises and then compared them to available evidence. The current evidence contradicted such consequences, thus proving the hypothesis false.

I don't know what you are talking about. If it is about heretical magical claims - Inquisition did a pretty good job investigating the claims and making claimers to submit empirical proof..

Are you referring to the famous Inquisition famous for torturing confessions out of people?

I don't have a choice accepting Christianity. I do take full responsibility for Crusades and for achievements and mistakes of Inquisition. Of course, I do not take any responsibility for all piles of false accusations and lies spread by atheistic propaganda. And of course, Jews who are believers should and must hold me responsible. There is a quite of a dialog going on between people believing in Judaism and Christians. The essence of Christianity is to seek the truth and to repent, but not to hide behind piles of lies, like atheism does.

By your own admission you are guilty of mass murder and a million of horrible crimes? Why should someone as evil as you walk free then? And once again you finish with a broad unsupported claim.

It is not a higher intellect - it is a superior intellect

Superior is a synonym for higher. Whats your point?

And babies do not learn.

Yes they do. Responding to stimuli is the foundation for most of babies experiences. Babies quickly learn to avoid things that cause pain.

Question: what had been the intellect existing before those who have already developed a more heightened intellect?

There is a distinct difference between knowing facts and the ability to learn. An adult raised by other humans will know more facts, but won't learn any better than a human raised by chimps. We gained our facts by communicating knowledge. My parents simply taught me what others had taught them, with the ultimate source being the person who discovered for themselves.

It is like you have higher IQ than Aristotle. Aren't you? You think you would do better in IQ tests than Aristotle or any of his students including Alexander of Macedon. Isn't it a nice fantasy?

I have no idea if Aristotle or Alexander would do better on an IQ test than me. How is that relevant to the discussion?

You are changing the subject. I said - '' then you start questioning them - but it is another subject.'' Of course, they are not NOW. But they were THEN - when you were a baby, before you could reach the toaster.

Obviously I did not question my parents before I could develop the ability to question them either. Whats your point?

Babies have no clue abut 5 senses. (As the matter of fact not all babies have all 5 senses.) They do not have faith in senses. They absorb and accept everything their senses bring into their brain, they do not sort or reject/accept the information - they unconditionally accept it. Babies have no choicer to have or not to have senses, to accept or not to accept the words - they have to have the blind faith - no ability to reject. God is not stupid.

I agree that babies don't question what their senses tell them. How is that relevant?

Whatever is the reason (s) ''because'', the point is that you DID have to accept their words - no choice - you had to have the unconditional faith. THE POINT IS BABIES ARE NOT ATHESTS, BUT THEY HAVE TO HAVE UNCODITIONAL FAITH, TRUST AND LOVE TO A BEING WHO IS SUPERIOR TO THEM IN THEIR MINDS AND TAKES CARE OF THEM, AND THAT IS PURE 100% THEISM.

Theism is belief in some kind of god. Parents are not gods, despite their obvious advantages.

DID I EVER SAY YOU SHOULD? It is just your logical deduction. The Christian belief says: laws of nature are not deductions from human intellect or human logic. See again steps 1, 2 and 3.
When I was 8 years old I conducted a simple experiment proving beyond any doubts that there was no God. BUT THIS IS ANOTHER SUBJECT.

Christian belief says the writings in a book and words a leader are the laws of nature. And please show me this proof.

You did it twice about telescope. You said that babies were atheists. Are you saying now that atheists do not have a full intellect? At least once you are saying the truth.
Unfounded strawman argument.

I said that a telescope is needed to see certain stars, not that you need it to see the world spins. And some atheists do not have full intellect, while some others do.

Yeah, I guess if we did not abolish slavery, the life of the average slave today would be a lot better than it was 200 years ago. Tell it to tens of millions of Russians dead, tortured, and enslaved.

You are correct. Technology has the ability to make peoples lives better, even in the face of horrible persecution.

As the matter of fact no religion was officially illegal in the USSR.

In some parts it was, in parts it wasn't. There was no unified policy on it. My point was that I don't support governments trying to force such things on their people.

You are changing the subject - and so we go in circles. You were talking about better and happier life, not about ''Life expectancy'' which has nothing to do to happiness. Depression, suicide rate, drugs and war on drugs, fear of nuclear explosion, - are very signs of happiness you grandma did not know.

Since happiness is not possible to accurately measure, our argument here is futile.

?. And you are the one who is judging cold fusion?

I don't judge cold fusion. I simply understand that its not a viable energy source currently.

And I did not even try - He spoke for himself just 2 posts back.

Unless Einstein here to defend himself, lets not presume to understand his stance.

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

 

[justone]

Newton believed in nonsense like alchemy and the occult


[url=http://Isaac Newton's occult studies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

This attack of atheistic propaganda on human sanity and on physics deserves a separate consideration.

Christian site:
[url=http://cana.userworld.com/cana_occultTerms.html]CANA - Occult Terms
The term "occult" is derived from the latin word occultus which means to cover up, to hide, or those things which are hidden or secret. When used in this paper the word "occult" means any attempt to gain supernatural knowledge or power apart from the God of the Bible.
Occult practices, whether the intention is good or not, are condemned strongly by God in Deut. 18:9-12; 2 Kings 17:17; I Chron. 10:13; Is. 8:19, 47:12-15; Ezk. 13:20, 21; Acts 7:41-44; Gal. 5:20; Rev. 21:8; and many other passages.
Christian site:
http://www.fni.com/cim/technicals/occultt.txt

''A PRIMER ON OCCULT PHILOSOPHY

Today the tentacles of occult philosophy embrace every area of our society. Police departments request psychics to solve crimes. College students are addicted to fantasy games (Dungeons and Dragons) which introduce them to the world of the occult through role-playing.1 Well-known science fiction writers mask occult doctrines in their works through pseudoscientific language.2 Colleges and universities offer graduate degrees in esoteric thought. Occult themes provide popular material for TV shows and movies. A leader of the women's movement urges her
followers to return to the ancient religions in which female
deities were worshiped (witchcraft). Even the American Medical Society endorses the search for the "new" powers to aid the healing process.

In apparent mockery of the waning influence of the church, one occultist in California quipped: "The second coming has already come--only J. C. didn't show up, Satan did."4 This current interest and growth of occultic teaching certainly gives evidence that the bright light of the fire of Christian civilization is burning low. Once again, as in the Dark Ages, the evil eye of the demonic is moving in on us, offering Satanically inspired substitutes…. This set the stage for the current revival in eastern religions and occult philosophy. ''

Some kind of a site influenced by atheism : occult: Definition, Synonyms and Much More from Answers.com
''In ancient times, it was believed that apparent deviations from natural law involved mysterious and miraculous "super-natural" or occult (i.e., hidden) laws, deriving from gods, invisible entities, or the souls of the dead. ..In most tribal cultures, shamans or similar practitioners claimed the specialized ability to work magic, especially as relating to healing the sick or obtaining useful information.
By the Middle Ages, the occult had been separated from its religious base and competed with the dominant religious belief and practice. The magic spells and rituals of the Middle Ages contain popular practices of pre-Christian religions in the Mediterranean Basin.''

Everyone, please pay attention how the occult ‘”competed’’ with Inquisition. How far the attack on human sanity can go?

Sir Isaak Newton, General Scholium the second edition of Principia 1713:
‘’For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction… and I do not form hypotheses’’

One can see how low atheists prpaganda can go in the attempt to destroy common sense and self evident reality… how unmeasurable can be lies thrown on us by atheists.

It is a waste of time to ask to an atheist to qoute Newton – where Newton could possibly show a slightest belief in the occult; and to explain how he could still call himself a Christian and be one of the very respected theologians of the Christian Chirch. As Newton would say : ‘’is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.’’

It clearly shows the spread of the athestic propaganda, its shameless and relentless attack on human sanity, science and reality.