I recently figured it out.

Most atheists try to set their religion of materialism apart by claiming that it isn't a religion.

The argument they use is that their religion of materialism has been proven to be objective,....by their religion of materialism. LOL.

The problem is that, having fooled themselves that they have no religion, so many of them have gone on a religion bashing spree.

This screwed up condition turns out to be a form of self-loathing!

To avoid this unbalanced way of being, it would be better if atheists got comfortable with their religion and concentrated on explaining why they think it is the best religion.

this really is a case of one being too foo.lish to understand just how foolish he is. naked woman running down the street etc...


may you never leave op. you provide some priceless moments. in fact, you may single handedly save this section

wiegraf:
this really is a case of one being too foo.lish to understand just how foolish he is. naked woman running down the street etc...


may you never leave op. you provide some priceless moments. in fact, you may single handedly save this section

It's amazing.

The n.aked emperor of the Nairaland religilous section waltzing in his delusional invisible Robe.

Your replies are no use to me at all! I am not looking for more displays of petulance and frustrated denial.

What I would like is for an atheist to step forward and face their religion square on.

Is it such a disaster that you have to dress it up?

This thread is for an honest atheist to step forward, state honestly that their belief in materialism is a BELIEF.

And not try to dress it up as proven by materialist experiments that only have one outcome -- materialism!

Then this honest atheist should promote their religion, and [size=16pt]tell us why they think their religion is the best.[/size]

So far, all the self-loathing is telling us is that you have been pushed into atheism (by fear?) and that you secretly hate it and your condition.

I'm sure there are mental institutes in Nigeria. Perhaps some of their patients have access to the internet.

sinequanon:
I recently figured it out.

Most atheists try to set their religion of materialism apart by claiming that it isn't a religion.

The argument they use is that their religion of materialism has been proven to be objective,....by their religion of materialism. LOL.

The problem is that, having fooled themselves that they have no religion, so many of them have gone on a religion bashing spree.

This screwed up condition turns out to be a form of self-loathing!

To avoid this unbalanced way of being, it would be better if atheists got comfortable with their religion and concentrated on explaining why they think it is the best religion.

Limited edition human, how you dey? Ok, let's leave it at that.

sinequanon:
Your replies are no use to me at all! I am not looking for more displays of petulance and frustrated denial.

What I would like is for an atheist to step forward and face their religion square on.

Is it such a disaster that you have to dress it up?

This thread is for an honest atheist to step forward, state honestly that their belief in materialism is a BELIEF.

And not try to dress it up as proven by materialist experiments that only have one outcome -- materialism!

Then this honest atheist should promote their religion, and [size=16pt]tell us why they think their religion is the best.[/size]

So far, all the self-loathing is telling us is that you have been pushed into atheism (by fear?) and that you secretly hate it and your condition.

Materialist experiments? Is it possible to design an experiment without using materials?

This is groundbreaking information!!

The person doing the experiment would have to DISAPPEAR or something. No?

don't mind them, especially the wannabe black too religious person claiming to be atheists, to them it is prestigious and it kind of give them a sense of little intelligence when infact they are looking for breakfast, lunch and dinner. their master the satanists(whiteman) who also claim to be atheist just to fool the black sheep is acting to be one but he isn't an atheist. He has jorneyed through out the earth and outside the earth, the only thing he keeps finding is non other than GOD. Why won't this white devils just accept GOD, they can't, it is impossible for them to submit to GOD, HE IS A BLACKMAN.

sinequanon:
Your replies are no use to me at all! I am not looking for more displays of petulance and frustrated denial.

What I would like is for an atheist to step forward and face their religion square on.

Is it such a disaster that you have to dress it up?

This thread is for an honest atheist to step forward, state honestly that their belief in materialism is a BELIEF.

And not try to dress it up as proven by materialist experiments that only have one outcome -- materialism!

Then this honest atheist should promote their religion, and [size=16pt]tell us why they think their religion is the best.[/size]

So far, all the self-loathing is telling us is that you have been pushed into atheism (by fear?) and that you secretly hate it and your condition.

EXACTLY, Tell me one thing that the atheist devils have created? one thing? we are working on history, it appears they did not even make anything. they create one thing quite alright, that is chaos!

Weah96:


Materialist experiments? Is it possible to design an experiment without using materials?

This is groundbreaking information!!

The person doing the experiment would have to DISAPPEAR or something. No?

gatiano:
EXACTLY, Tell me one thing that the atheist devils have created? one thing? we are working on history, it appears they did not even make anything. they create one thing quite alright, that is chaos!

The two of you must be roommates.

The wrong type of atheists have responded, so far.

All of them are suffering from the condition identified in the OP.

To be fair to them, it is a huge step to go from bashing religion to accepting that you are, yourself, religious and have been engaging in self-loathing. So, for them, it will be a gradual transformation. The ranting is to be expected.

However, I would be interested in hearing from a balanced atheist, who has arrived at his position through critical thought, and is confident enough in his belief system to call it as it is -- his subjectively preferred belief system. Then we can talk about what atheism delivers.

The frightened denials and self-loathing of the other atheists may be giving us a biased picture.

tell or mention one thing that the whiteman devil atheists created? why is he digging the wholeworld for? what is he looking for? calling it archaeology

Weah96:


The two of you must be roommates.

sinequanon:
I recently figured it out.

Most atheists try to set their religion of materialism apart by claiming that it isn't a religion.

The argument they use is that their religion of materialism has been proven to be objective,....by their religion of materialism. LOL.

The problem is that, having fooled themselves that they have no religion, so many of them have gone on a religion bashing spree.

This screwed up condition turns out to be a form of self-loathing!

To avoid this unbalanced way of being, it would be better if atheists got comfortable with their religion and concentrated on explaining why they think it is the best religion.

Of course you must be in the opposing camp, flaunting the "Gospel" of Transcendentalism, which is not a religion at all, but a belief.

Kay17:


Of course you must be in the opposing camp, flaunting the "Gospel" of Transcendentalism, which is not a religion at all, but a belief.

A belief becomes a religion when you deny it is a belief. At that point you are under the control of the thing you are following.

I am not familiar with transcendentalism, but I had a quick wiki. Wondering if you meant transcendental idealism.

Anyway, I can often find a few elements of different things that I agree with and elements that I don't. I am not religious, because I have no loyalty to any system.

(I don't think that there is anything terrible about having a belief, btw! But something is wrong when you have to deny it. And something is wrong when it involves fear!)

sinequanon:


A belief becomes a religion when you deny it is a belief. At that point you are under the control of the thing you are following.

I am not familiar with transcendentalism, but I had a quick wiki. Wondering if you meant transcendental idealism.

Anyway, I can often find a few elements of different things that I agree with and elements that I don't. I am not religious, because I have no loyalty to any system.

(I don't think that there is anything terrible about having a belief, btw! But something is wrong when you have to deny it. And something is wrong when it involves fear!)

I didn't properly mean transcendental realism, rather a mockery of the 'beyond our world' proponents.

Again you seem to have a general problem with self expression. You said a belief one denies is a religion, what then becomes of a religion one admits/accepts?!

Kay17:


I didn't properly mean transcendental realism, rather a mockery of the 'beyond our world' proponents.

Again you seem to have a general problem with self expression. You said a belief one denies is a religion, what then becomes of a religion one admits/accepts?!

A religion that someone admits is a religion, irrespective.

You see, you have half-baked ideas that you think constitute logic.

You have a general problem with logic. Are you unable to slow down and think?

In your very loose statement above, I can only imagine that you think there is some sort contradiction. The way to argue is to directly specify what you think the contradiction is, rather than hide behind rhetoric and vague hints.

At a guess, I'd say you have confused these two statements...

"A belief becomes a religion when you deny it is a belief." (which is what I said).

AND

"A religion is a belief that you deny." (which is NOT what I said).

To help you practice logic, try this...

A charge of theft that is upheld in court becomes a conviction.

AND

A conviction is a charge of theft that is upheld in court.

Until you can comprehend logical constructs consummately, debating with you will be tedious.

(btw. don't bother with your reply, which will be the predictable denial).

sinequanon:

At a guess, I'd say you have confused these two statements...

"A belief becomes a religion when you deny it is a belief." (which is what I said).

AND

"A religion is a belief that you deny." (which is NOT what I said).

To help you practice logic, try this...

A charge of theft that is upheld in court becomes a conviction.

AND

A conviction is a charge of theft that is upheld in court.

Until you can comprehend logical constructs consummately, debating with you will be tedious.

(btw. don't bother with your reply, which will be the predictable denial).

Kay17:

Again you seem to have a general problem with self expression. You said a belief one denies is a religion, what then becomes of a religion one admits/accepts?!

I am sorry, and I duly apologize. I will rephrase my question.

What becomes of a religion whose beliefs are not denied as beliefs, but accepted as beliefs?

sinequanon:


A religion that someone admits is a religion, irrespective.

You see, you have half-baked ideas that you think constitute logic.

You have a general problem with logic. Are you unable to slow down and think?

In your very loose statement above, I can only imagine that you think there is some sort contradiction. The way to argue is to directly specify what you think the contradiction is, rather than hide behind rhetoric and vague hints.

At a guess, I'd say you have confused these two statements...

"A belief becomes a religion when you deny it is a belief." (which is what I said).

AND

"A religion is a belief that you deny." (which is NOT what I said).

To help you practice logic, try this...

A charge of theft that is upheld in court becomes a conviction.

AND

A conviction is a charge of theft that is upheld in court.

Until you can comprehend logical constructs consummately, debating with you will be tedious.

(btw. don't bother with your reply, which will be the predictable denial).

MOAR!

Kay17:




I am sorry, and I duly apologize. I will rephrase my question.

What becomes of a religion whose beliefs are not denied as beliefs, but accepted as beliefs?

What I said about "beliefs which are denied as beliefs" has no impact on "beliefs which are accepted as beliefs". Nothing "becomes" of them as a result. They can still be part of a religion.

"A religion whose beliefs are not denied as beliefs, but accepted as beliefs" is still a religion. One difference is that it would be by choice, just like supporting a football team.

On the other hand, the religion of beliefs denied as beliefs is a dogma. Such a religion is likely to go around trying to ENFORCE the belief.

I don't know whether the type of religion you refer to actually exists in practice. The closest I can think of are from Asia. Hinduism, perhaps, where there is an element of choice among a pantheon of gods?

sinequanon:


What I said about "beliefs which are denied as beliefs" has no impact on "beliefs which are accepted as beliefs". Nothing "becomes" of them as a result. They can still be part of a religion.

"A religion whose beliefs are not denied as beliefs, but accepted as beliefs" is still a religion. One difference is that it would be by choice, just like supporting a football team.

On the other hand, the religion of beliefs denied as beliefs is a dogma. Such a religion is likely to go around trying to ENFORCE the belief.

I don't know whether the type of religion you refer to actually exists in practice. The closest I can think of are from Asia. Hinduism, perhaps, where there is an element of choice among a pantheon of gods?

I am trying to understand you, so forgive my persistent questions.

Are you trying to say dogma is the qualifying attribute for a religion?

And that a persistent denial can form a dogma?

Kay17:


I am trying to understand you, so forgive my persistent questions.

Are you trying to say dogma is the qualifying attribute for a religion?

And that a persistent denial can form a dogma?

A persistent denial can lead to dogma.

A religion does not have to involve dogma. It can theoretically be belief by choice, as I indicated, although I cannot think of such a religion in practice. To me, a religion in its basic form is simply a set of behaviours and standards that you follow. The belief factor concerns belief that a particular way of life will deliver satisfaction for you. A dogmatic religion takes it a step further makes it about universal "truth" and delivering some "necessity" for everyone.

I see we have another anony/deepsight deistic sophist on our hands- Mr.Sinequanon

lol.....this guy might actually bring this section back to life with his nonsense.


OP's nonsense on display
-atheism is a religion
-atheism mandates materialism
-atheists engage in self-hate by denying their own religion


sinequanon = deepsight + anony + Tbaba


Big words, no sense

sinequanon:
I recently figured it out.

Most atheists try to set their religion of materialism apart by claiming that it isn't a religion.

The argument they use is that their religion of materialism has been proven to be objective,....by their religion of materialism. LOL.

The problem is that, having fooled themselves that they have no religion, so many of them have gone on a religion bashing spree.

This screwed up condition turns out to be a form of self-loathing!

To avoid this unbalanced way of being, it would be better if atheists got comfortable with their religion and concentrated on explaining why they think it is the best religion.

What is the reason why atheists hate their religion? I haven't seen it.

JackBizzle:
-atheism mandates materialism

In your rant, I have picked out something that a balanced person could have turned into a proper question.

Atheism does not mandate materialism.

The OP is about most atheists being materialists and materialism being the basis of their atheism.

It is lack of material evidence -- repeatable, reproducible, controllable, cause and effect -- of a god that makes them atheists. Many claim that if they had a "shred" of their repeatable, reproducible, controllable, cause and effect evidence that they would believe in god. I wouldn't. You could pile your "material evidence" of a god sky high, and I still would not believe in god.

undercat:


What is the reason why atheists hate their religion? I haven't seen it.

Many atheists, I said.

We have yet to find one on this forum who doesn't.

I think that most of them are in a transitional state, trying to escape religion, but haven't found a way. They imagine that they have, though, and celebrate by bashing religion. When you point out that their form of atheism is a religion and they are indulging in self-loathing, they go ballistic.

sinequanon:


A persistent denial can lead to dogma.

A religion does not have to involve dogma. It can theoretically be belief by choice, as I indicated, although I cannot think of such a religion in practice. To me, a religion in its basic form is simply a set of behaviours and standards that you follow. The belief factor concerns belief that a particular way of life will deliver satisfaction for you. A dogmatic religion takes it a step further makes it about universal "truth" and delivering some "necessity" for everyone.

But do you realize your definition of religion is not the general definition?

And if you apply your definition of religion to yourself, would you count yourself as religious, if not why so.

sinequanon:


In your rant, I have picked out something that a balanced person could have turned into a proper question.

Atheism does not mandate materialism.

The OP is about most atheists being materialists and materialism being the basis of their atheism.

It is lack of material evidence -- repeatable, reproducible, controllable, cause and effect -- of a god that makes them atheists. Many claim that if they had a "shred of their repeatable, reproducible, controllable, cause and effect evidence" that they would believe in god. I wouldn't. You could pile your "material evidence" of a god sky high, and I still would not believe in god.

Hence, your confusion and delusions of grandeur.


Many atheists would not even need material evidence. All God would need to do would be to tranposrt the atheist to a spiritual dimension and have a one on one


or better, many bhuddists who believe in the spiritual state that they dont have a concept of God because such concepts are flawed

JackBizzle:



Hence, your confusion and delusions of grandeur.


Many atheists would not even need material evidence. All God would need to do would be to tranposrt the atheist to a spiritual dimension and have a one on one


or better, many bhuddists who believe in the spiritual state that they dont have a concept of God because such concepts are flawed

Has God ever transported you to a spiritual realm to have a one on one?

Kay17:


But do you realize your definition of religion [in its basic form] is not the general definition?

You seem to have a habit of missing out key phrases and changing the emphasis. I've added it back in, in square brackets (and corrected my typo! )

I wouldn't argue it, even if there were a "general" definition, which I doubt.

What is your definition of religion in its basic form?

Kay17:
And if you apply your definition of religion to yourself, would you count yourself as religious, if not why so.

I am not religious, by my definition, because I don't have loyalty to any rules or standards.

That's a good question, actually. I think I need to add "loyalty" to my definition, because there are things that I do "religiously", i.e as a matter of routine. I think that is more a matter of laziness and that I should aim to scrutinize all aspects of my life.

hahn:


Has God ever transported you to a spiritual realm to have a one on one?

Fortunately, no.

JackBizzle:


Fortunately, no.

How can one then believe in something unseen? Aside from what we've been told over the years to accept what we can't see as faith.