Why would a God need people to worship him? Think about it. If you were all-powerful, benevolent and wise and created your own little universe populated by little beings far less powerful than you, why would you worry so much about them worshipping you or worshipping false idols etc? Doesn't that seem petty? And petulant? If that's the guy ruling paradise I'm not so sure I want to be there.
Of course, priests DO CARE about which God you are worshipping because it directly affects their bottom line.
Religion. Just another scam. The second biggest scam in the history of the world.
Topic: The problem with atheism. - page 36. (Read 38498 times)
DOJ Declares Atheism A 'Religious Movement'; Qualifies Leaders For Same Tax Exemptions As Clergy
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/75629-doj-declares-atheism-a-religious-movement-qualifies-leaders-for-same-tax-exemptions-as-clergy/
Barack Obama’s Department of Justice says in a legal filing that atheism is a “religious movement” whose leaders qualify for the same housing tax breaks received by priests, ministers, rabbis and other clergy.
According to UPI, the ruling comes in response to a lawsuit brought by the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), seeking to end the federal parsonage tax deduction granted to clergy by the U.S. government, which allows them to claim part of their income as a tax-free housing allowance.
As one might expect, being told that atheism is, in fact, a religion, is anathema to non-believers. As a result, Annie Laurie Gaylor, the plaintiff in the suit – who receives a $15,000 housing stipend from the Freedom from Religion Foundation – is upset because she must pay taxes on money that “ministers of the gospel” do not.
In response, the federal government, doing its best Keystone Cops impersonation, said that rather than agree to end the parsonage exemption, it would extend the deduction Gaylor because she is the leader of a religious movement — albeit one that does not believe in God.
Predictably, Gaylor was outraged by her “victory,” telling The (Nashville) Tennessean that the government missed the point of her lawsuit — not to mention the fundamental difference between her atheist group and a religious order:
“We are not ministers. We are having to tell the government the obvious — we are not a church.”
Ah, Ms. Gaylor, but you are a “religion” – or a “faith,” as it were – like it or not. Merriam-Webster defines faith as: “firm belief in something for which there is no proof” (2): “complete trust.”
Without getting involved in a religious debate – which is not the purpose of this post – atheists can no more prove that God doesn’t exist than Christians can prove that he does. Therefore, both sides must have faith if they are to remain loyal to their respective beliefs.
At any rate, Gaylor’s response to winning the lawsuit reminds me of the spoiled child who not only doesn’t want a piece of candy; he doesn’t want anyone else to have one either.
As for the DOJ ruling, it makes perfect sense. Not. Unless of course, it is viewed in the context of the progressives’ fervent desire to elevate atheism in the eyes of America.
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/75629-doj-declares-atheism-a-religious-movement-qualifies-leaders-for-same-tax-exemptions-as-clergy/
Barack Obama’s Department of Justice says in a legal filing that atheism is a “religious movement” whose leaders qualify for the same housing tax breaks received by priests, ministers, rabbis and other clergy.
According to UPI, the ruling comes in response to a lawsuit brought by the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), seeking to end the federal parsonage tax deduction granted to clergy by the U.S. government, which allows them to claim part of their income as a tax-free housing allowance.
As one might expect, being told that atheism is, in fact, a religion, is anathema to non-believers. As a result, Annie Laurie Gaylor, the plaintiff in the suit – who receives a $15,000 housing stipend from the Freedom from Religion Foundation – is upset because she must pay taxes on money that “ministers of the gospel” do not.
In response, the federal government, doing its best Keystone Cops impersonation, said that rather than agree to end the parsonage exemption, it would extend the deduction Gaylor because she is the leader of a religious movement — albeit one that does not believe in God.
Predictably, Gaylor was outraged by her “victory,” telling The (Nashville) Tennessean that the government missed the point of her lawsuit — not to mention the fundamental difference between her atheist group and a religious order:
“We are not ministers. We are having to tell the government the obvious — we are not a church.”
Ah, Ms. Gaylor, but you are a “religion” – or a “faith,” as it were – like it or not. Merriam-Webster defines faith as: “firm belief in something for which there is no proof” (2): “complete trust.”
Without getting involved in a religious debate – which is not the purpose of this post – atheists can no more prove that God doesn’t exist than Christians can prove that he does. Therefore, both sides must have faith if they are to remain loyal to their respective beliefs.
At any rate, Gaylor’s response to winning the lawsuit reminds me of the spoiled child who not only doesn’t want a piece of candy; he doesn’t want anyone else to have one either.
As for the DOJ ruling, it makes perfect sense. Not. Unless of course, it is viewed in the context of the progressives’ fervent desire to elevate atheism in the eyes of America.
No. Atheism is not a religion and it is not a belief. This is a point theists seem incapable of comprehending.
Seems like Atheism is the surrender to a substantially boring existence with absolutely no purpose or reasoning other than to isolate one's self from the narrowing perspective that all outcomes of religion have negative impacts on society.
So I did a quick google search on Richard Dawkins today.
If I were an atheist I would start using Penn Jilette as an example instead. Just saying.
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/
Very cool thread so far.
If I were an atheist I would start using Penn Jilette as an example instead. Just saying.
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/
Very cool thread so far.
What God(s) are best to worship? There are so many to choose from, how does one go about deciding?
Flip a coin. If god exists he will make the coin land for the right choice. If god doesn't exist it doesn't matter. 
And this assumption is also a product of your mind and is probably valid for your universe. But in others universes it may work a bit differently.
Actually, it can be interpreted as "a part of your mind can be likeness of deeper part of your mind which you call God".
Actually, it can be interpreted as "a part of your mind can be likeness of deeper part of your mind which you call God".
Some people would call that neurological quantum entanglement...
Fascinating... Now lets put tons of capital into researching technology to rewrite our minds like a computer so we can delete the word "God" from everyone's minds!
Technology is inseparable from the human mind. Technology is one way the mind expresses itself in order to be enhanced.
Religion is a technology, so you are right. But the pragmatic implications of an individuals belief with the capacity to express their mind in a manner that disrupts all others is the reason why I say, stfu already. Let the mind grow without heavy debate on why our emotions ALWAYS get the better of us.
One thing everyone can agree on is we are all here breathing the same God damn air.
Lets keep this shit clean.
Lol.
I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you mean. I think the wording is off? I'm trying to figure out how a belief has the capacity to express its mind. I think you meant the individual has the capacity to do so, but not sure what you mean by "disrupt all others."
We have had this magic guy in the sky theory for a few thousend years now and so far no-one have come up with a single prof. anything better.
And stop it with the guy in the sky. Here's some fun stuff from John Creaux when he was playing with voodoo & before he turned meh 
Some people think they jive me
I know they must be crazy
Don't see they misfortune
Guess they just too lazy
J'suis le Grand Zombie
Got yellow belt of choison
Ain't afraid of no tom cat
He fill my brains with poison
Think you better
Come to the killing floor
Walk on gilded splinters
Kon kon, the killy kon kon
Walk on gilded splinters
Put gri gri on your doorstep
Soon you be in the gutter
Melt your hert up like butter
A a and i can make you stutter
And this assumption is also a product of your mind and is probably valid for your universe. But in others universes it may work a bit differently.
Actually, it can be interpreted as "a part of your mind can be likeness of deeper part of your mind which you call God".
Actually, it can be interpreted as "a part of your mind can be likeness of deeper part of your mind which you call God".
Some people would call that neurological quantum entanglement...
Fascinating... Now lets put tons of capital into researching technology to rewrite our minds like a computer so we can delete the word "God" from everyone's minds!
Technology is inseparable from the human mind. Technology is one way the mind expresses itself in order to be enhanced.
Really? First time? Wow. Anyway, it's about half correct.
Is that strange? Maybe I've been hanging around the wrong people
Why's it only halfway correct?It's correct that your mind is, essentially, a 'likeness' of god's mind, sort of like how if you cut 1/4 from a piece of holographic film you aren't left with 1/4 of the image, but 100% of the image at 1/4 size.
It's half correct in the sense that it doesn't explain the relationship between the likeness of god and god, nor does it describe anything about other stratified minds, nor does it acknowledge or describe the larger system of which both life and death are a part.
Most importantly, it doesn't describe the largest system, the 'set of all sets' so to speak which contains the syntax that governs all of these things.
And this assumption is also a product of your mind and is probably valid for your universe. But in others universes it may work a bit differently.
Actually, it can be interpreted as "a part of your mind can be likeness of deeper part of your mind which you call God".
Yes and no. This assumption is a byproduct of a memory of a direct experience of absolute truth. So the assumption is that my memory is valid to the extent that my recollection of the experience is accurate, but the experience itself contained no assumptions.
Fortunately, the method by which the experience was realized is replicable, so I can always refresh my memory.
What God(s) are best to worship? There are so many to choose from, how does one go about deciding?
All hail Eris Discordia!
Disclaimer: All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.
Really? First time? Wow. Anyway, it's about half correct.
Is that strange? Maybe I've been hanging around the wrong people
Why's it only halfway correct?It's correct that your mind is, essentially, a 'likeness' of god's mind, sort of like how if you cut 1/4 from a piece of holographic film you aren't left with 1/4 of the image, but 100% of the image at 1/4 size.
It's half correct in the sense that it doesn't explain the relationship between the likeness of god and god, nor does it describe anything about other stratified minds, nor does it acknowledge or describe the larger system of which both life and death are a part.
Most importantly, it doesn't describe the largest system, the 'set of all sets' so to speak which contains the syntax that governs all of these things.
And this assumption is also a product of your mind and is probably valid for your universe. But in others universes it may work a bit differently.
Actually, it can be interpreted as "a part of your mind can be likeness of deeper part of your mind which you call God".
We have had this magic guy in the sky theory for a few thousend years now and so far no-one have come up with a single prof. Isn't it about time someone admiteded they are wrong?
...because god isn't a magic guy in the sky. If you set god=truth then theists and atheists can search for truth together. Hint: absolute truth is directly knowable.
You grok "Thou art god". 
We have had this magic guy in the sky theory for a few thousend years now and so far no-one have come up with a single prof. Isn't it about time someone admiteded they are wrong?
Really? First time? Wow. Anyway, it's about half correct.
Is that strange? Maybe I've been hanging around the wrong people
Why's it only halfway correct?It's correct that your mind is, essentially, a 'likeness' of god's mind, sort of like how if you cut 1/4 from a piece of holographic film you aren't left with 1/4 of the image, but 100% of the image at 1/4 size.
It's half correct in the sense that it doesn't explain the relationship between the likeness of god and god, nor does it describe anything about other stratified minds, nor does it acknowledge or describe the larger system of which both life and death are a part.
Most importantly, it doesn't describe the largest system, the 'set of all sets' so to speak which contains the syntax that governs all of these things.
Really? First time? Wow. Anyway, it's about half correct.
Is that strange? Maybe I've been hanging around the wrong people
Why's it only halfway correct? Your mind is God. It generates a universe around you. Your birth is creation of the world and your end is the end of the world. Amen.
This is the first time I've heard this one; very cool way of seeing it.
Really? First time? Wow. Anyway, it's about half correct.
Your mind is God. It generates a universe around you. Your birth is creation of the world and your end is the end of the world. Amen.
This is the first time I've heard this one; very cool way of seeing it.
...Of course that would put many of us in the religion of bitcoinism, inshallah.
And others see bitcoin as a wonderful, exciting experiment that we have the opportunity to be a part of.
Ex... p... PERIMENT?! Blasphemy!
...Of course that would put many of us in the religion of bitcoinism, inshallah.
And others see bitcoin as a wonderful, exciting experiment that we have the opportunity to be a part of.
Jump to: