Ah, but are you worshiping your awareness of your visual affliction, or are you just overwhelmingly convinced of it’s existence? (sorry, only two choices…)
Edit eye deity idea
Sorry, but I believe I can’t read that fine print.
1 Like
See, now you are deliberately and obstinately using believe in a convoluted manner to indicate, or at least imply, that belief is a matter of choice or a conscious decision making process… all to avoid answering the entirely serious and important question…
Edit: eyeglasses for attitudes
There is no god, or supernatural. The only way to “believe in” the existence of god or the supernatural is by indoctrination - that is how “doctrine” works.
Religion is not the “expression of theism.” Remember.
No it is not. They are two different, albeit sometimes related, things. I believe you are mistaken. I am so convinced of this that I have erected a shrine in my foyer, before which I am presently kneeling and will continue to prostrate myself in acknowledgement of the magnitude of self delusion of which you are presently consumed. Now go away with this nonsense. I have already wasted more time trying to explain the obvious than should be necessary.
Edit preying mantis
1 Like
There is no definite description of what activity worship is.
More stupid comments. Religion has been around as long as mankind. ‘The Only Way?’ Was L.Ron indoctrinated into Scientology? Was Martin Luthor indoctrinated into Protestantism? Was Joseph Smith indoctrinated into Mormonism? Sometimes people just invent their own religions and guess what, people follow them without ever being indoctrinated. Indoctrination happens later. Do you know what another word for indoctrination is? “TEACHING.” So the stupidity of your comment is that ‘no one accepts a religion without being taught about it.’ The emphasis of ‘indoctrination’ is belief in a doctrin without question. 'Without Question" If the only way to believe was to believe without question, we would not have 200 Different Christian denominations, or 4000 religions recognized world wide. It does not take indoctrination to start a religion and one need not be indoctrinated (accept without evidence) to believe. It is sometimes enough to never look for the evidence, be unaware of the evidence, assume that everyone believes the same thing, never be exposed to alternate views. There is a large group that are not indoctrinated but just don’t know any better. When they discover the manipulation, they drop their religions and find another, move on in some way, or even assert non-belief. You have a very simplistic view of the human condition.
Religion is in fact the expression of theism. I should expand this as well; however, as all religions are not theistic. Religion is the expression of strongly held beliefs. We have already cited Buddhism and Taoism as belief systems with non-theistic sects. Confucianism is a non-thiestic religion. And there are many more. All God believing religions are in fact ‘theistic.’ That is the meaning of the word ‘theism.’ Theism = belief in god or gods. All theists believe in God or gods. That is the very definition of the term. It also begs the question, can theists believe in God or gods and not be religious.
Non-religious theism. Perhaps something like AA would fit the bill. To attend meetings you must agree to believe in a "Higher Power.’ There are no specific beliefs or dogma associated with that higher power or how it is to be worshiped… (They do pray to it.) Well, unless they are just repeating the Serenity Prayer as a mantra. Can one believe in a god, be theistic, and yet not religious? A God hater comes to mind. Fuck you god, I hate your ass, go fuck yourself, and I will never follow one of your fucked up religions. (I think that qualifies as well.)
Belief is not worship: Another idiotic comment. Your brain has been set to [dysfunction ]. I believe your so far out in La La Land, there may be no hope for you. So, I’m worshiping you? Bullocks!
1 Like
I believe it’s pretty fucking cold outside where I am right now. Does that mean I worship frigid air?
(Edit for Brrrrrrr…)
2 Likes
Just what is a ‘definite description’? Is there a ‘definite description’ of anything? If so, of what? If so, who provides them? Anyone we know?
What if I provided one and called it ‘definite’? Would that work?
1 Like
Uh, well, not exactly sure, but given the rapidity with which the balmy and pleasant weather avalanched into ant-fucking-arctica, someone must be responsible and, hey, I’ve never been one to wait for evidence before blaming someone for something if it satisfies my self-aggrandizing goals…
Edit well-digger’s ass
2 Likes
Sundays. 10:00. Probably somewhere extremely north.
How does one say ’ Ullr Breck’ in Canadian?
Very Good!
That is a major problem in the course to world peace. Semantics. We need to secure the definitions of words and descriptions of things. It’s kind of what science does, and atheists should probably not be opposed to scientific endeavors.
Along with that, we will need a “scientific” government charter. We need a perfect government charter. The imperfect constitution is why we are where we are.
On the course to peace?
Good gracious, what an inaccessible and execrable goal.
Either a constitution is perfect or or it’s too flawed to use. This seems like a false dichotomy…
Whom decides that it’s perfect, when it becomes so? And since it’s a charter, which sovereign power issues it and the rights granted within?
- We need to secure definitions? Who is “we”? As I’ve said many times over the years in this forum, there is no “we”. You haven’t my permission to include me in anything. Speak for yourself.
- Atheists should probably not be opposed to scientific endeavors? Why not? You are the should-er and should not-er for everyone identifying as atheist? The only thing all atheists have in common is the lack of belief in deities. Period.
Or did atheism turn into some sort of club when I had my head turned?
5 Likes
Oh, please. I am very confident that there is a solution to this ostensible argument.
Hey genius moderator, I wrote that with the interrogatory adverb “probably (should)” so as to allow responders opportunity to describe a possible argument to the contrary. I am open to consider a contest - just describe the possible adverse. You did not do so, and have responded noticibly antogonistic, rather than empathy. Have you ever discussed this subject with me, before? Have we discussed any subject, before?
If you want a contest of wits - let’s do it. You got all your friends ready to give you a heart to make you feel like a winner - want to play?
I now wonder why I think it is a possible endeavor and why are there people who think it is
Ouch
Eventually.
In the trials of the American Experiment, my analysis suggests that the over-run of the poorly observed experiment is repeating and compounding errors in the guidance of the society. The flaws in the deployment of the Three-part Separation Theory causes the partisan chaos that trickles down causing the social disorderliness most of us endure The exception being CyberLN, who wants to be the coolest dude in the room.
A modern sophisticated American constitutional convention will not fall short of the goal. Except for CyberLN, We put a man on the Moon; eventually We are going to recognize the need for a “scientific” government charter system. The difficulty in gathering those who are inclined, talented, and skilled, will be overcome upon the dissemination of a paradigm advancing a more reliable government separation theory.
The American deployment of the Three-part Separation Theory only prevents any one person from ascending to a dictatorship. It does not prevent the partisan contest to populate the three parts with politically aligned personnel - oligarchy.
If the Iron Law of Oligarchy is true, then we need to make sure the principles of political organization are demarcated and tried.
Sigh…I’ll simplify my entire response to your post: I find the word we, when used to describe anything about atheists other than a communal lack of belief in deities both absurd and distasteful.
2 Likes
I’m so far behind now that I will simply concur. Besides, I would only be repeating myself.