One honest reply.

O.k. You are maybe right. If (I am saying "if", I didn't say we have to, I only would like to see how would be your method in general to clarify meaning of words and its consequences) we want to talk about worship, how would you suggest that we clarify the meaning of worship and how could we examine if it is possible to worship something that is not God-like?

Not having any idea of God and rejecting an idea of God after knowing about it are two very different things. It's strange that such simple understanding is so easily clouted.

Let's put the nails in this coffin. Atheism is a body of thought, a way of a thinking, a doctrine. The doctrine categorically rejects the supernatural, whether it's the monotheistic God of the bible and the God of other monotheistic religions or the polytheistic gods of Hinduism and ancient religions like the Greek gods. Every thing, event, phenomenon - every aspect of our realm - must have a formal, empirical and rational, logically and mathematically understandable basis, and anything as of yet unexplained must also fall into these systems of understanding. Then and only then will it come into acceptance i.e., there can be no other way, as understood by its stringent requirement of evidence. These points are part of the (unwritten) doctrine. Do not confuse this with knowledge in general. In science, for example, explaining why is explaining how. The answer to every why is just a deeper look into the how. In religion, there typically isn't a how, since the answer is almost exclusively supernatural, but a why. (As as an aside, I'll take a jab at theoretical physicists and say that their field is perhaps the only one where mathematics and science meets faith. The idea of math-based faith seems rather crazy, I know, but it is what it is.)

These things make it a "belief system", not a religion. Religions contain within them beliefs systems, but they are not of themselves belief systems. I think this where is the friction often occurs. Atheists hear theists and other believers say that "Atheism is a belief system" and it's almost as if they instinctively hear "Atheism is a religion." This kind of cognitive registration is probably just one result of the Atheistic indoctrination process, but I could be mistaken on that. Any form of organized Atheism can be classified as a religion. You may notice that this can't possibly happen because the objective and purpose of Atheism is the disbelief of all religions. This is chaos; religion by design is ordered, so you can never have Atheism as a religion.

From the perspective of someone who doesn't fear the death of his body anymore, he wouldn't be wrong, if he would go to a church, to a mosque or to a hall of Atheists and say "get out of my way, dumbs!". Cause those who go to a church, to a mosque or to a hall full of Atheists, they are all searching for a way to release themselves from the fear of death. It might be a bit difficult to understand why Atheists should be searching for a way to release themselves from the fear of death.
We recognize everything through its signs. Who worries about tomorrow, he is searching for a way to release his self from the fear of death. This will be much more clear if we think about tomorrow from the perspective of a kamikaze bombers. As soon as he decides that his aim is only to die, he doesn't care anymore for the problems of tomorrow. For example: There is no one who can make him fear, when he didn't pay his taxes. He has gained some kind of invincible power comparing with all other humans who fear death. Regarding this example some might claim that they pay their taxes cause they are responsible people. But they are not honest, no one would pay taxes if he wouldn't fear the consequences.
My story is not insulting atheists or scientists, it is showing that love makes us invulnerable. All obsessive lovers and haters don't fear death. In the case of an Kamikaze bomber, it is hate. But there are so many people who don't fear death, when they feel love for a woman, or for communism. The question is only, if it doesn't make more sense to solve the problem of death through loving something that is abstract and has the characteristic of being the greatest merciful. People who believe this way those did never hurt others because of their arrogance. They never feel hate, not even against their enemies.
Jesus didn't hate his enemies even when they did crucified him, cause he new that in the world inside they don't owe him anything. If they weren't no one could recognize him.

Bolsotron! I think my post above answers your question. How can someone believe in God and judge before he did it? This act is offending God. Lovers don't offend their object of love. Arrogant people do.

Regarding my post 514, A lot of religious people may think that the best thing for shahrad is a juicy death penalty. Just like some Atheists who did post me face palms.

I don't find many atheists I share belief with. Mostly I get pegged into categories on this forum by various debaters but they don't really fit.

I differ widely from Vhawk on ethical and moral Values. I don't see eye to eye with Madnak on the nature of reality. I'm not in agreement with Chezlaw on the nature of (free) will. My view on the basic truth values of science are different from that of Thylacine.

Neither does atheism entail a "rejection of the supernatural". It does not even mean rejection of religion.

Lastly: I have never derived any values from atheism, because there are no values to derive.

Well, now we have even a bigger problem: There are different kinds of atheists. What would you call yourself then, if you're largely different on so many positions with others under the same label of atheist? If atheists cry fowl over the term being misunderstood, you can now see why. As of now it's a philosophy and an umbrella term encompassing, in a very broad sense, some of the things I already outlined. For obvious reasons I never once when into any specifics of what Atheism entails on the micro level. For an example of Atheist philosophy see any literature or discussion regarding the corruption of society and the individual by religion, and the concept of the meme of "mind virus."

Also, if you don't share a belief or opinion you, by definition, reject it. So yes, Atheism does entail that. Come on, don't start leveling with the misuse of basic logic.

No. If you can't find evidence for something, there's absolutely no reason to take that thing on faith. I can't find evidence for leprechauns, big foot, the tooth fairy, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but this does not automatically lead me to having faith in their existence.

Where did I state that I find faith "deplorable"? Where did I state that I dislike the phrase "taking it on faith"?

No more than being American entails that you have to disagree on abortion issues- which it doesn't.
I don't use the term "atheist" to describe those positions, that's what you did. And it is not a philosophy, but it is certainly often used as an umbrella term.

My "life philosophy" is certainly not atheism, and I don't really think anyone on this board much cares about what it is.

I don't like labels but the philosophies that lies closest to my heart are empiricism (instrumentalism) and hedonism. From those one can derive truths, ethics and values.

Yes, exactly. You would have absolutely no reason (read: evidence) to take any of the things like dragons and leprechauns on faith, because you don't have proof. Once you have your proof either way, it's not a matter of faith anymore. If you take anything into acceptance without evidence, it will be through faith. For a better idea, think of the amounts of faith you have in professionals and technical experts.

So it would seem that it's the understanding that's lacking, unfortunately.

Pre-RGT it was the one of the very first things you said to me in a quoted reply. If it really concerns you and you won't be able to sleep tonight, you can sift through the pages of SMP. Depending on how active you are it's probably still in your posting history.

The second part I said you might dislike it. Read closely next time, please.

are you thanking me for being honest or do you think I wasn't being honest when I replied?

There has been 2 replies to the claims. One was honest.

sharad, you are really confused. you said the 1 word that punishes or is scary to atheists is death. then you said christians are saved from it, invulnerable. so i asked are jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus also saved from death. answer is?

Pls read #154. I think, your question is answered there. If not than tell me the reason why you couldn't find your answer.

eh.. no.
i agree it makes a difference whether we know about god or not, but since the kids who dunno about it are called atheists aswell, it allready shows that atheism is not belief system. it could be (with all the philosophy and stuff), but it could also just be lacking of a belief - not even bother picking a side, if you will.

i wrote this on page 10:

you know, when we chinese people find out about this jesus chlist guy, some of us might decide to worship him.
others decide to strongly reject it,
and others dont even care because for all we know, chances are he is made up just as 2k other gods. i belong to those.

shahrad, i get what your point/claim is.
but do you agree its not a fact that believers are invulnerable ?
i mean, is it fair to say only true believers, ones that have reached a pretty darn high VIP level, really are invulnerable ?

cause like... get invulnerable or die tryin'..

A fact like you expect, is not existent. That there might exist something (universe, we....) might be the only fact. Everything is relative. The higher one climbs a mountain, the stronger and satisfied he becomes, this doesn't mean that those who don't reach the top are not strong and satisfied, even those who walk around the mountain have a level of strength and satisfaction.

Oh crap.... I was enjoying the silliness of this thread. I was talking to two colleagues of mine at work who I happen to know are atheists. Just for fun, I called the two of them into my office and dropped the Shahrad-Bomb... the word that destroys atheists and scientists. In a flash of light both the atheists were utterly destroyed. Where there was two atheists before, there was now two smoking piles of ashes.

Shahrad is NOT silly. His words destroy athiests (and presumeably scientists... I'm afraid to say the word around any scientists should I accidentally destroy them)

Ah I see. A problem with words again, cause I thought by 'invulnerable' you mean absolutely immune to fear/pain and that would be a pretty absolute word like 'immortal'. immortal is not relative ^^

But if its relative, then believers of different levels would only have more or less fear- and not like, no fear at all which would be 'invulnerable'.

The thing is atheists can also have more or less fear- and they can reach the status of pretty close to no fear by doing other things than believing in god.

man why am i always too late to edit

in-vulnerable
im-mortal

the prefix suggests "not-"

so either you're vulnerable, or not. if you're less invulnerable than the ultimate believer, it means that you are still (a little?) vulnerable.

He meant immune to any and all rational arguments against his positions.

I tried to be gentle and polite, but it didn't work. Let us die and see if it is a fact that believers become invulnerable or not. Before that, you have to flirt with your facts and I have to flirt with my belief. Now a question came into my mind: Do you believe that it is a fact that you will die and don't exist anymore? If yes (lets forget about it, that (IMO) everyone who says that he believes that he will die, is lying), is it a nice feeling to believe that it is a fact that you will not exist anymore? Do you gain more when you believe that after you are death, I assume, it is a fact that you will die like me and everyone else, nothing will exist for you anymore? Can you please for a second imagine that you are death and you don't exist anymore and tell us how it feels?
You know what? If I were an Atheist, I would at least believe that a spaceship will come and take me to other worlds, when I am death, I mean it wouldn't be a fact, but still, I would prefer it to the idea that I will not hear anything anymore, that I will not see anything anymore, that I will not smell anything anymore....
Oh another question, is it a fact that we will not exist anymore when we are die? Is it a fact that your and mine conscious will die together with our brain? Is it a fact that we don't have a soul? Is it a fact that you don't exist and you are a playing tool of Atoms and Molecules and cells?
A lot of questions, I know, but pls try to answer the questions in the first part.

You haven't got a clue what an atheist is.

If you mean that I don't have a clue what an atheist is who asks questions like: Is this a fact that god exists? It is not a fact that love makes invulnerable, is it? Than you might be right, but you could go ahead and explain how these guys are. I would be very pleased.