> Jack Oniell wrote:

> @Rain

If the Islams are down on their knees Praying to their god "Allah" then they are Worshipping Allah
If Christians are bowing their heads in prayer, or for some people, down on their knees, They are Worshiping Christ

Praying and Worshiping ARE the same thing

I disagree. I can pray to, lets say my dead mom, and I think she can hear me (hypothetical). I'm not worshiping my mom am I? Just trying to communicate. It's the same with the Saints. Mary on the other hand does border on Idolatry. Though it's still not. Some people almost treat it that way but it's not the way it's meant to be.

Therefor, praying and worshiping are not the same thing. Some Classical Chinese religions pray to their ancestors asking for help and that goes for plenty of other spiritualities. It does not mean you worship those people, you're simply trying to communicate with them in the belief that they can hear you.

catholics actively pray to Mary every time they have mass because their a follower of Catholicism, u could actually say they do it religiously.

That there fits your definition of worshipping, Ehawk.

I like to read the first post and the last three posts to see just how far off topic a thread has gone.

prayer does not equal worship and praying to someone doesnt assume they are superior to you... Rain gave a good example.... alot of times people pray to loved ones that pass away. they arent worshipping them, and in many circumstances, they dont consider the person that passed away as superior... Prayer is simply an attempt at communicating spiritually...

it is pretty funny when the non-religious try to tell the religious what we beleive...

Lol, or at least mostly on topic

Well, I am a former almost atheist (I was never quite one all the way ) who now finds atheism to be completely illogical and irrational (don't mean to offend anyone, but it's my honest opinion, I intend this post to be for the purpose of a sincere exchange of ideas, not a bunch of people trying to prove themselves right) based simply off of the same thought process that the scientific method uses. The scientific method states that all knowledge in the natural world, to be scientific, must be based off of measurable evidence, empirical evidence, and be observable. The thing is, is that all knowledge (from a purely naturalistic standpoint) when it comes down to it is based off of evidence from our senses. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, as long as we can be certain that are senses are an accurate perception of reality, the problem is, is that we don't have any evidence of the sort to support that. There is no way to prove that our senses are correct, and therefore the knowledge from our senses are in no way scientific, and therefore any true knowledge is impossible to attain. (Think about it, to do that, we would have to observe the unobservable) That means in a purely atheistic world (that means not just the belief that there is no all-powerful God, but also the belief that there is nothing "supernatural" or "beyond nature" whatsoever, that everything in any realm of existence is completely natural) there is no such thing as knowledge, logic, or rational thought. So in a "hard" atheistic existence neither the atheist nor the theist are either logical/illogical or rational/irrational, and any thought of "freeing" people from religion is pure foolishness, as is any thought that anyone can be "enslaved" by religion in such a state of existence. It is simply humans trying to find purpose and meaning outside of the existence of a God/gods/spiritual realm, which is impossible, and only ends in absolute failure. That whole train of thought is actually so flawed in so many ways, since if the world is completely natural it is impossible to free anyone from anything, since there is no such thing as free will, just laws of science, which decide everything we do. Saying that we have any form of choice in what we do is as ridiculous as saying that a lifeless piece of rock has a choice of falling down towards the earth when gravity pulls upon it. Many atheists respond that our brains are crazy things and, who knows, maybe they have the capability of free will? But unless our brains can overcome the laws of physics, which they can't, that the entire point is null and void; just another futile human attempt at purpose outside of the spiritual realm.

This whole flow of logic initially sent me from atheistic naturalism to post-modernism, but post-modernism has it

atheism is the only belief system that does not require worship, prayer, or even lessons.  it is the spontanious occurance of natural neglect. not in any negative way, however, but just enough to maintain equality among the human condition.  you religious folks are funny. i'm glad the human race was able to evolve enough to enjoy the luxury of difference.  religion is the best way to proove that there is no god, thank you for making me even more atheist than the previous tic.

abided, whether or not our senses are accurate perceptions of reality is completely irrelevant.  Our senses are how we percieve reality and thereby set the limits of what we can and cannot know.  It is illogical to speculate at the existence of anything beyond our perceptions of reality because we have no way of knowing with any level of certainty.  Think of it like this say you wake up in a room with no doors, no windows, no way of seeing beyond the 4 walls ceiling and floor.  There are no sounds coming from outside, no smells, nothing to indicate that there is anything beyond your 4 walls.  Can you know what is beyond your 4 walls?  Now because you possess knowledge from outside the room you might say, "Of course I can cause I've been outside the room I know the whole world's out there," but can you know, with any level of certainty, what is beyond your walls?  You could be burried 50 ft underground, you could be underwater, you could be suspended from a crane 10 stories high, with no means of percieving anything beyond your 4 walls can you know what lies beyond?

Now it isn't announced much because some people have trouble accepting it but there is a disclaimer on all sciences.  Every field of science every theory ever law that people of science have given us comes with a disclaimer.  That disclaimer reads "As far as we know."  No man or field of science has or will ever make the claim that they know anything with 100% certainty.  The reason being we can't; there is no way to know anything with absolute certainty.  Even gravity, something as simple and universal as gravity, is not 100% because the theory of gravity is based on our ability to understand and percieve reality.  As far as we know there is a force that objects exert on one another that causes them to be drawn to one another.  Maybe in truth gravity works because there are invisible pixies pulling things towards each other.  We don't know as we have not yet developed the tools to see those invisible pixies or even know if they exist.

lol @ Fokker, what balls you must have. you tell someone who used to be an atheist that his definition of atheism is wrong and yours is right and you dont even provide a source to back it up...

ok Fokker, if Atheism is having no beleif either way in the existence or non-existence of a God, what are people that beleive there is no God? and what is the difference between agnostics and atheists? also, he came nowhere near every argument i've used

http://m-w.com/dictionary/atheists

Main Entry: athe

well, i looked up atheist in a large, widely used dictionary, and there was only 1 definition, and that definition was "one who believes that there is no deity" now you can claim there are other lesser used, more obscure definitions that i will accept given a credible source, but a dictionary having only 1 definition and its single definition proves that the most widely accepted definition of atheist is one who believes that there is no deity...

also, if atheists dont beleive that there is no God, why would they argure that there is no God, and are you seriously saying the difference between atheists and agnostics is what they will argue over? thats bullshit. people that beleive there is no God are atheists, people that have no beleif in the existence of non-existence of a God are agnostic... you have also failed to answer my other question: if Atheist is having no beleif either way in the existence or non-existence of a God, what are people that beleive there is no God?

your own beleif in a God created by humanity is bullshit. basically the question is whether you beleive in the existence of a supreme being. and your answer is you beleive in the existence of an un-supreme being, you are simply avoiding the question...

btw, no matter what dictionary used, no matter the differences, true definition of anything is defined by humans anyways, so this means words and there meanings evolve via popular opinion.

considering this, it would be wise to trust the meaning of atheism from an actual atheist. keep in mind, the dictionary definition has to be general and simple. we atheist's do not have organized churches and groups to spread our belief systems, this means every atheist also has an individual meaning of what they believe on the inside.  some atheists will even argue with me over differences.