Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Earthquake Damage]

There exists an Atheist religion. Alright? I'm tired of saying this.

I wasn't trying to argue.  I understood you perfectly.  I was just trying to both clarify your statement and point out the source of the apparent misunderstanding (i.e. word choice).

As for the definition issue, I've seen several people (or maybe just one or two on several occasions) in this thread whip out their dictionaries.  That part wasn't addressed specifically to you.  It was a general "hay guys, maybe you should agree on one definition rather than mixing them all up (which seems to be the case)."

[inaluct]

You've never heard that said before?
Although, it does not lay out a purpose. It does not have any reference to superhuman or supernatural anything when defining cause, purpose, etc. It only gives cause.

I've never heard it said by anyone but a right wing religious nut.

[¿]

You've never heard that said before?
Although, it does not lay out a purpose. It does not have any reference to superhuman or supernatural anything when defining cause, purpose, etc. It only gives cause.

I've never heard it said by anyone but a right wing religious nut.

Said the guy who said it?

I wasn't trying to argue.  I understood you perfectly.

What?

And THERE IS NO ATHEIST RELIGION. I've already MADE that point and so have others. Atheism, no matter how you define it, does not constitute a religion.

If I was angry at nothing, you've just ruined my whole day!

[inaluct]

You've never heard that said before?
Although, it does not lay out a purpose. It does not have any reference to superhuman or supernatural anything when defining cause, purpose, etc. It only gives cause.

I've never heard it said by anyone but a right wing religious nut.

Said the guy who said it?

You honestly couldn't understand that I was asking if you were implying that? You're reading comprehension is really that meager and inadequate?

[¿]

You've never heard that said before?
Although, it does not lay out a purpose. It does not have any reference to superhuman or supernatural anything when defining cause, purpose, etc. It only gives cause.

I've never heard it said by anyone but a right wing religious nut.

Said the guy who said it?

You honestly couldn't understand that I was asking if you were implying that? You're reading comprehension is really that meager and inadequate?

You're irony comprehension is really that meager and inadequate? I point out it's very funny that you should say that, as I gather from your posts you do not like right wingers.

I know exactly what you implied and posted by rebuttal already:

Although, it does not lay out a purpose. It does not have any reference to superhuman or supernatural anything when defining cause, purpose, etc. It only gives cause.

[Earthquake Damage]

If I was angry at nothing, you've just ruined my whole day!

QQ

Hugs?

[inaluct]

You said that I said that modern science was a religion. You were the one who said that. Either you're only semi literate, or you're mentally retarded. My original question was rhetorical. I was accusing you of saying that modern science was a religion.

[Zangi]

I am an atheist.

The very idea that this is a 'religion' is stupid.  More like a club of people who are only together cause they don't believe in a deity.  Just so they can look cool and maybe seem important somewhere.

In short, it fails harder then real religions.
At least some of these real religions have their merit in controlling the masses with a morale code.

[¿]

If I was angry at nothing, you've just ruined my whole day!

QQ

Hugs?

ARGHH!!! KILL!!!

You said that I said that modern science was a religion.

I said that you brought up out of nowhere something only a right wing religious nut would say, which is almost ironic as I gather that you don't like those kind of people. I understand it was a question, and I addressed it as a question as well, but it struck me as funny in the following manner: (an extreme example):

You walk into the middle of a crowd where a serious discussion is taking place. You interrupt the whole thing by saying loudly "Have you ever wet your bed? I've only heard people who do bring it up."

[inaluct]

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Your definition includes modern science. "Especially" and "exclusively" are not the same word.

The first set of definitions here are relevant.

[¿]

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Your definition includes modern science. "Especially" and "exclusively" are not the same word.

The first set of definitions here are relevant.

Includes modern science how? Can you actually follow through with that thought? "Especially" and "exclusively" are not the same word, but science hardly goes past "cause".

And your definition cancels out the other one? I see a few definitions listed on that page that still support my claims.

[Wiles]

Language is an ever changing social construct, words can mean different things to different people.

Once a person gets past the fact that they are not the holder of absolute truth it is a lot easier for them to understand and get along with people.

[inaluct]

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Your definition includes modern science. "Especially" and "exclusively" are not the same word.

The first set of definitions here are relevant.

Includes modern science how? Can you actually follow through with that thought? "Especially" and "exclusively" are not the same word, but science hardly goes past "cause".

And your definition cancels out the other one? I see a few definitions listed on that page that still support my claims.

Science easily includes nature and cause. And I don't see any definitions on that page that support your twisted one.

In short, you're obviously trying to degrade science and make it look like it's equal to religion, to give your own religious views more legitimacy.

[¿]

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Your definition includes modern science. "Especially" and "exclusively" are not the same word.

The first set of definitions here are relevant.

Includes modern science how? Can you actually follow through with that thought? "Especially" and "exclusively" are not the same word, but science hardly goes past "cause".

And your definition cancels out the other one? I see a few definitions listed on that page that still support my claims.

Science easily includes nature and cause. And I don't see any definitions on that page that support your twisted one.

In short, you're obviously trying to degrade science and make it look like it's equal to religion, to give your own religious views more legitimacy.

In short, you walk into the middle of a crowd where a serious discussion is taking place. You interrupt the whole thing by saying loudly "Have you ever wet your bed? I've only heard people who do bring it up."

I have only said it's not equal to religion. You are the one saying this.

twisted

That trips the troll alarm.

edit:
We should bake Wiles an e-cake, because he is the wisest one here yet, and it would probably spice up his life I would assume is rather boring.

[Earthquake Damage]

RE Science & Religion

While it is certainly true that some people treat science as a religion, and perhaps most of us accept at least some scientific "truths" (incl. occasional misinformation) by faith alone (either because we don't understand the underlying principles or don't have the time and energy to evaluate various studies and experimental results ourselves), good science (i.e. the scientific method, properly applied) is not religion.  That is all.

Also, parentheses FTW (FTL?).