(December 5, 2018 at 2:36 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:(December 5, 2018 at 1:01 pm)Cherub786 Wrote: Logic and philosophy are separate from the laws of physics. The laws of physics are limited in scope and cannot be applied to what if anything exists beyond the universe, but logic and philosophy are broader in their scope and can be applied to anything.
Every effect having a cause is not a law of physics, it is derived from logic.
Nope. Totally false.
There are many logical systems. Here are twenty five of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:S...rmal_logic
FIRST, you have to demonstrate and prove the system you are using, actually applies. You have no way of doing that with conditions that may or may not have applied to
what could be external to this universe.
Many logical systems, while being totally internally consistent, do not obtain in reality.
What appears to humans on the macro level to be logically intuitive, is not the way reality works, necessarily.
So no. Your "cause and effect" not only is not applicable, but we know there are examples where there is no cause ...
for example virtual particles and the random radioactive decay of atoms ... which is totally not predictable, and has no known cause.
(December 5, 2018 at 12:27 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: God isn't a requirement of "religion." Many Chinese people don't believe in any god whatsoever, but manage to be religious people, who attribute various "supernatural" attributes to things like their ancestors, birds, dragons, and what not. Other Chinese don't believe that at all and are still atheists. Many work in factories making aluminum and other goods. All atheists and no science necessary. Atheism is not a prerequisite of science. You could literally obliterate the notion of atheism from human existence and we would still have science. That doesn't mean atheists can't be scientists, and many are. But at the end of the day, most aren't and that's fine. It doesn't make them dumb or irrelevant. It just makes them opinionated and/or religious.
Nice try ... that's all irrelevant.
What they do or do not do in China is totally beside the point.
The point was whether atheism is a religion, not what constitutes other forms of religion.
The point is, gods are a requirement of theism. When labeling someone an a-theist, it means they have no god. Nothing else.
No sorry, cherry picking definitions doesn't work on me. Try again.
You have religious claims, organization, protections, collect offerings that are tax exempt, and make claims beyond the scope of how said agency is defined. I live in the United States of America. Here you are both legally and empirically a "religion" with said protections. To discount the Chinese is also irrelevant because their definition differs from your said definition and their primary religion is atheism. Your opinion doesn't dictate anything beyond the scope of who you are. If you say you are an atheist, that's your opinion.