Is title of atheist a shame?

[Clara Tea]

Is it appropriate to publish an article in a scientific journal where Hawking is said to be "the leading and outspoken atheist and Professor Dr. Hawking"? Or is the title of an atheist still a shameful thing?


Please read more in:
Proof of Omniscient Being | Religious Forums

Is it good:

You might say: ``To know everything that means spanning infinity, so,
it would be impossible for such a being to exist.''
No, it is possible, because you are not sure.
If you are perfectly sure, only then it is impossible in your opinion.
Learn the depths inside your own mind.
The outspoken researcher Dr.~Richard Dawkins [the author of ``God's delusion'']
was not sure in Ben Stein's scandal documentary ``Expelled''.

To Nazis, the title "Jew" is a shame. But comparing Nazis to Jews, we see egoists who incorrectly consider themselves to be superior, who attacked peaceful nations, tortured to death Jews and handicapped and Black people. Just who is superior and who is inferior???????

Any time any group considers itself to be superior, we run into the same problems, but perhaps not as intensely as the problem with Nazis.

Christians have set themselves up as rulers of the United States, since the Religious Right is solely responsible for electing Reagan, Bush (Sr.), Bush (Jr.), and Trump. They want to run things their way. So....lets analyze how they did.....the world is a mess....Global Warming, forest fires, pollution, debt, wars, homelessness, etc. Didn't God once say "thou shalt not kill?" I don't complain about Christianity ("thou shalt not kill"), but I complain about those who profess to be Christians who don't understand a thing about Christ (nor the bible, nor God).

Comparing Christians and Atheists, I'd say that Christians have historically killed and tortured a lot of people. It seems to me that the ones who hold themselves superior are, once again, inferior.

 

[Clara Tea]

No it isn't, abusing atheism is a shame though

Abusing anyone is a shame.

However, freedom to swing a fist ends at the nose of another. So, whichever (atheist or theist) interferes with the other, they deserve a bit of criticism.

The world is confusing. Abort or not? Fix pollution or not? Pay down the debt or not? Teach creationism in schools?

The world is filled with hard choices, and many of the boundaries are drawn along religious lines. So, naturally there is angst (on both sides). Sometimes, each considers the other an abuser.

Compromise doesn't always work. If Republicans want to cut off all aid to starving homeless people so that some millionaire can have solid gold toilets, compromising by killing only half as many homeless people is usually not acceptable.

I try to see everyone's point of view, and sometimes am arguing on one side in one post and the opposite side on another post. Perhaps, in my mind, I have not yet decided. But, though I try to be even-handed, I find myself without a solution to the constant battle between theists and atheists.

Mutual respect would be nice, but it is hard to respect one who is trying to take away our rights.

 

[ChristineM]

Abusing anyone is a shame.

However, freedom to swing a fist ends at the nose of another. So, whichever (atheist or theist) interferes with the other, they deserve a bit of criticism.

The world is confusing. Abort or not? Fix pollution or not? Pay down the debt or not? Teach creationism in schools?

The world is filled with hard choices, and many of the boundaries are drawn along religious lines. So, naturally there is angst (on both sides). Sometimes, each considers the other an abuser.

Compromise doesn't always work. If Republicans want to cut off all aid to starving homeless people so that some millionaire can have solid gold toilets, compromising by killing only half as many homeless people is usually not acceptable.

I try to see everyone's point of view, and sometimes am arguing on one side in one post and the opposite side on another post. Perhaps, in my mind, I have not yet decided. But, though I try to be even-handed, I find myself without a solution to the constant battle between theists and atheists.

Mutual respect would be nice, but it is hard to respect one who is trying to take away our rights.

Also impossible to respect someone who repeated abuses you

This guy digs at atheism every chance he gets and he does not understand what he is digging.

 

[Twilight Hue]

He is not “the leading atheist and Professor Dr. Hawking”.
He is “an outspoken atheist, and Professor Dr. Hawking”.

Thankfully, for all of humanity and the world, it is not a shame (or a ‘sin’, or any kind of childish insult) to be called an atheist.

I'd consider it being bright.

Hence the organization, The Brights.

 

[blü 2]

Is it appropriate to publish an article in a scientific journal where Hawking is said to be "the leading and outspoken atheist and Professor Dr. Hawking"? Or is the title of an atheist still a shameful thing?

It seems a totally weird claim ─ 'outspoken' is an almost indelicate adjective to apply to Hawking ─ are you sure you don't mean Dawkins? ─ but no more "shameful" than if he'd said he didn't think there was credible evidence for fairies.

Please read more in:
Proof of Omniscient Being | Religious Forums

The lightest thing that can be said for that link is that it presents no examinable evidence whatsoever.

Much more seriously , it expresses no concept of what real entity is intended to be denoted by "Omniscient Being" such that if we find a real suspect we can determine whether it's an omniscient being or not.

Nor even what is meant by 'omniscient' ─ how would such a being know that there was nothing [he] didn't know [he] didn't know?

It is still my strong view that gods exist only as concepts / things imagined in individual brains, and are most likely artifacts of some of our evolved instincts, such as curiosity and the survival need for explanations to mysteries.

And 'omniscient' ─ like 'omnipotent', 'omnipresent', 'perfect', 'eternal', 'infinite' and so on ─ are entirely imaginary qualities, which I guess wouldn't seem inappropriate for an entirely imaginary being.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Is it appropriate to publish an article in a scientific journal where Hawking is said to be "the leading and outspoken atheist and Professor Dr. Hawking"? Or is the title of an atheist still a shameful thing?


Please read more in:
Proof of Omniscient Being | Religious Forums

Is it good:

You might say: ``To know everything that means spanning infinity, so,
it would be impossible for such a being to exist.''
No, it is possible, because you are not sure.
If you are perfectly sure, only then it is impossible in your opinion.
Learn the depths inside your own mind.
The outspoken researcher Dr.~Richard Dawkins [the author of ``God's delusion'']
was not sure in Ben Stein's scandal documentary ``Expelled''.

If it is not a shame to call someone a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, a theist, a deist, a polytheist, a panentheist, a Baha'i, a Sikh, a liberal or a conservative, then certainly it is not a shame to call some an atheist. All of these things are mere beliefs -- stuff you think may be right, but can provide no reason for your supposition.

And, in a way, I rather suspect that atheist may be the least derogatory term in that list, because at least the atheist does NOT believe in something for which there is NO evidence.

 

[questfortruth]

This guy digs at atheism every chance he gets and he does not understand what he is digging.

You might say: "So for me, the
possibility of a God existing remains open."
It is an understandable situation because we do not live
in Paradise yet. This means, that there is satan. The satan
was not created by God of Love, because only Holy Lucifer was
created by Love, but lost the gift and Right of Existence.
Because satan was not created by Love, he is god himself
("false True God" - idol). Hence, there are two gods fight
going on on Earth. That is why it is not Paradise yet:
"Suffering Mom with Cancer - YouTube". The satan is
advocating for atheism, the God - for theism.
Hence, it feels like the God both exists and does not.

 

[questfortruth]

Nor even what is meant by 'omniscient' ─ how would such a being know that there was nothing [he] didn't know [he] didn't know?

There is only seven Millennium Prize Problems. In my opinion, I have my solution to all the problems.
If there were 100000000 such problems, I would have solutions to them as well.
So, it is possible to know absolutely all problems, that are there.

 

[questfortruth]

there is NO evidence.

Evidence is different from proof.
Evidence for X just says in favor of X.
The proof for X says beyond reasonable doubt that X holds.

Therefore, the existence of theists, [especially of theistic scientists, physicists], tells in favor of the Existing God, not in favor of nonexisting god. So, the existence of theists is evidence for theism.
If there were only atheists and no single theist in all history of the world, then that is STRONG PROOF of Atheism.

 

[Spirit of Light]

There is only seven Millennium Prize Problems. In my opinion, I have my solution to all the problems.
If there were 100000000 such problems, I would have solutions to them as well.
So, it is possible to know absolutely all problems, that are there.

If you have the answer to all problems that have existed you would be God

 

[rational experiences]

A theist.
At heist.
A the ist.

Egotism actually. The ist by the first A alpha human man.

If science a chosen human practice was not practiced argument religious creationism sciences also would not be expressed.

Rationally.

If you state natural then its terms means owned.

A human is first owned naturally

If you use words to quote science was a criminal At heist.....
Would be the name word inferred meaning.

So you would teach criminal terms.

To steal from natural for self means.
To murder natural states by self choice.

Science was humans first criminal.

Why a human written book about creation and science quoted the human choice introduced by science was criminal. And it mind changed consciousnesss human into its inherited criminal behaviours.

Status..... if natural supplied everyone evenly then we were family supported equally and mutually.

Was our exact human teaching. Natural "with" was our teaching.

 

[Sonic247]

As far as saying someone is an atheist in an article it should be added or not added based on if it's relevant regardless of the connotation. To some it's negative to some it positive. Of course to me it's a negative, because if anything is a shame, it's a shame that we are taught as children that we are nothing but a cosmic mistake destined to be worm food, in the same way many consider Christian doctrine child abuse I feel the same about atheist doctrine, in a total sense whether it's a shame or not is based on whether there is a God and whether it's true or not that they had no way of knowing. Because even if there was a God if there really was no evidence how can you blame someone for that, but if there is evidence that is ignored and there is a God then it's a shame to be an Atheist.

 

[questfortruth]

If you have the answer to all problems that have existed you would be God

We are not mammals. Hence, we are gods. Such thing tells Creational Science and Theology.
And satan: "you will be like gods, knowing" (Genesis, Bible).
And Jesus Christ: "be perfect like God" (New Testament, Good News, Bible).

if there was a God if there really was no evidence

Evidence is different from proof.
Evidence for X just says in favor of X.
The proof for X says beyond reasonable doubt that X holds.
Therefore, the existence of theists, [especially of theistic scientists, physicists], tells in favor of the Existing God, not in favor of nonexisting god. So, the existence of theists is evidence for theism.
If there were only atheists and no single theist in all history of the world, then that is STRONG PROOF of Atheism.

 

[Spirit of Light]

We are not mammals. Hence, we are gods. Such thing tells Creational Science and Theology.
And satan: "you will be like gods, knowing" (Genesis, Bible).
And Jesus Christ: "be perfect like God" (New Testament, Good News, Bible).



Evidence is different from proof.
Evidence for X just says in favor of X.
The proof for X says beyond reasonable doubt that X holds.
Therefore, the existence of theists, [especially of theistic scientists, physicists], tells in favor of the Existing God, not in favor of nonexisting god. So, the existence of theists is evidence for theism.
If there were only atheists and no single theist in all history of the world, then that is STRONG PROOF of Atheism.

Humans are not God. Humans are Gods servant

 

[questfortruth]

Humans are not God. Humans are Gods servant

In your religion, but you are not of my religion. In our religion the saints are gods:
"let all be one with US, like We are one" (Jesus Christ)

 

[blü 2]

There is only seven Millennium Prize Problems. In my opinion, I have my solution to all the problems.
If there were 100000000 such problems, I would have solutions to them as well.
So, it is possible to know absolutely all problems, that are there.

No, you didn't address the point I raised.

Which was, how would a being claimed to be omniscient know that there was nothing [he] didn't know [he] didn't know?

 

[questfortruth]

Which was, how would a being claimed to be omniscient know that there was nothing [he] didn't know [he] didn't know?

There are only seven Millennium Prize Problems. Hence, if God has solved them all, He must know, that the Clay Institute has not released 8-th problem.

 

[questfortruth]

No, you didn't address the point I raised.

Which was, how would a being claimed to be omniscient know that there was nothing [he] didn't know [he] didn't know?

Perhaps, there is an infinite amount of conjectures, problems, and tasks. But we can select some 10 or more problems into a set.
Consider any finite set of problems, for example, 1000. We God has solved them all. Hence His effectiveness is 100%.

 

[blü 2]

Perhaps, there is an infinite amount of conjectures, problems, and tasks. But we can select some 10 or more problems into a set.
Consider any finite set of problems, for example, 1000. We God has solved them all. Hence His effectiveness is 100%.

But you've negated the claim that God's omniscient, so I've made my point.

 

[questfortruth]

But you've negated the claim that God's omniscient, so I've made my point.

Wrong! I am not an atheist, never was, never will be. I am higher than nothing.