How you treat your fellow neighbor is independent of Religion. Sadly, many try to justify violence in the name of their god by labeling people into an "us vs them" mentality.
i.e.
I have known a few atheists that were more "Christian" then some Christians.
I have also known a few Christians that were more secular then atheists.
Whether a person is "good" or "bad" is an example of how they externalize their philosophy.
ALL religions at their core teach the same message:
Treat others how you want to be treated.
If you want to know if God cares if you go to church, ask her. Just don't put any expectations on how the answer / synchronicity will arrive.
--
I support the master race: Not White, black, yellow nor red but the Human race. For we ALL are brothers and sisters.
> Then you wrongly conclude: Atheists will be in for a rude awakening when they die as they will realize that their belief
Thanks for catching the grammar mistake!
Obviously it should read: as they will realize that their lack of belief
> The hypotheses for determining the existence of anything has to be it doesn't exist.
As I've before: God is not some mathematical equation to be proven, but to be experienced.
For example:
* If you are married, "prove" that you love your spouse? "Prove" that you trust your partner?
You _demonstrate_ it by how you behave, not only by what you believe. Belief, then Faith, then Action then Proof, always in that order.
When the Wright brothers "proved" that they could fly in an aeroplane (sic.) they acted on their belief. Their proof WAS their experience.
Ironically, the simplest proof of God:
Look in the mirror.
Which is just another way of saying:
Know Thyself !
But that is a discussion for another day
> If I believe fire-breathing flying unicorns that cure cancer are among us, is the burden really on you to prove me wrong?
Existence is a tricky thing, since reality is multi-dimensional.
* Conceptually, those things exist.
* Physically, they do not.
There is no need to prove you wrong -- only for you to show me _why_ living your philosophy has advantages, AND for you to be honest to admit what its weaknesses are. As St. Francis said:
Preach the gospel, and use words if necessary.
ALL 4 groups, Theist, Atheist, Agnostic, Gnostic, have both strengths AND weaknesses. I would be careful of anyone who is too blind or myopic to see both the positive and negative in every perspective. Only those who say "There is only way path" or say "Our way is the correct one. This side is better then the others." are too coward to admit that they are in what Feynman referred to as a "cargo cult".
> The distinction between an Agnostic and an Atheist does not serve any real purpose.
1. There is a HUGE difference between belief and knowledge. They are _orthogonal_ concepts.
...
No Knowledge = Agnostic
^
|
No Belief = Atheist < - - - . - - - > Belief = Theist
|
v
Knowledge = Gnostic
2. Your definition of gnostic is incorrect:
Gnostic: Knows that Bigfoot exists (though has no proof)
Gnostics/Mystics know via experience. That IS the proof.
e.g.
- A women knows she is pregnant via the fact that she is experiencing having a baby. Her belief is independent of the fact (though they tend to be conflated.)
- You can read all you want about playing the drums but that doesn't mean you know how to. You might _intellectually_ understand the process, but knowledge involves doing. For example, I _know_ how to play the drums because I _can_ play the drums.
Your fallacy is assuming one group is "better" then the other.
The are ALL different BUT EQUAL.
They ALL have Strengths and Weaknesses.
Everyone has faith. If you don't have faith in your beliefs then why do you have them in the first place? You have proven each and every one of them??
Since you appear to have trouble _reading_ I will repeat what I wrote:
Atheism is _without_ Belief
By definition Atheists have ZERO knowledge about God.
As a Mystic I have personal experience about God so the zero-hypothesis is an incorrect assumption.
I do 100% agree that Religion is in the business of selling heaven insurance.
You seem to be lumping Religion and Spirituality together -- there is a big difference between the two:
* Religion: One man telling another what he should do to understand The Source.
* Spirituality: One man telling another what he could do to understand The Source.
> there is still zero physical explanation for Consciousness and Intelligence, yet both clearly exist, albeit as far as we know, not separately)
Same with numbers, ideas, and time. The metaphysical exists independently of the physical.
> and dualism offers a non-religious model for that.
Dualism is incomplete. The hologram is a better analogy.
1. You assume that people are always happy to receive truth. That is incorrect.
2. Science by _definition_ is amoral; which is incomplete as you point out. It prompts Scientists to ask:
* (How) Can we do this?
but it doesn't ask:
* Should we do this?
Morality, which is subjective, is overlaid on top of Science; while Secularism is indeed a key foundation, it still, literally, misses the bigger picture. Both Politics and Religion are applied external philosophies -- all you have done is traded one set of dogma for another. That is not the solution.
While we have made just a blip in technical knowledge the planet is still spiritually immature. This will change by 2024 when we start to learn how to balance Science & Spirituality.
As a mystic I have _knowledge_ by definition, aka experience.
Athiest telling other people what they can and cannot know is the height of ignorance and arrogance. They are literally like the blind man telling those who can see color that they are delusional.
As one alien species said (about humans):
"You mean you have to pay to live on the planet you were born on??"
> A lot more people than atheists tacitly believe that God doesn't exist,
FTFY.
To know means: to be able to prove OR to have experienced. Since the existence of God is NOT some mathematical equation to be proven but experienced, atheists do NOT know -- all they have is lack of belief.
Since you are confused about definitions:
* Theist: With Belief in God,
* Atheist: Without Belief in God,
* Agnostic: Without Knowledge in God,
* Gnostic: With Knowledge in God.
The ignorance of Atheism is pretending their path is the only valid path.
The arrogance of Theism is pretending that their path is the only valid path.
As a Mystic, the first 3 groups LACK KNOWLEDGE, however ALL paths are valid.
Atheists will be in for a rude awakening when they die as they will realize that their belief was incomplete. Regardless, they can be just as good, (or as bad) as theists if they practice the golden rule. Your internal philosophy matters little; what matters is your external philosophy:
Treat others how you want to be treated.
> If the theory that the Moon was ejected from the Earth from a massive asteroid impact is correct.
It is not. The moon is a billion years older then the earth.
Considering light was slowed down to zero a few years back, you are now just catching up to it?
> - doesn't like hardware raid (apparently a lot of the pros rely on talkign to an actual disk)
There is ZERO point of using hardware RAID with ZFS.
You can NOT _trust_ RAID in the first place -- it doesn't matter how fast your RAID is if it can silently fail!
ZFS RAID Z0, Z1, or Z2 gives you more advantages of RAID without its disadvantages.
You can have it fast & insecure OR slow & safe. Pick one.
Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.
