Of course it was atheism. The hardcore branch 
The cults of Josiph Visarionovich, J.B.Tito, Ceauşescu etc were parallel with dogma of "scientific atheism",but these were not identical phenomena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality
@unknownuser said:
What's with the map?
It's interesting .. (Romania seems to be very religious country ..)
@unknownuser said:
At the “Rapture” (imminent event), I will leave the Earth, I will go to Heaven, so I will not post anything on this Forum.
You, unbelievers, will recall from my words, but it will be too late ...!.
(In the Bible you can find all details...!)
You are so sure about your place in heaven ... what sin is that? pride?
@marian said:
I understand where you are coming from, maybe better than most here, but you have to understand that what communists proclaimed as atheism wasn't atheism.
Of course it was atheism. The hardcore branch
@marian said:
They in fact made a religion out of worshipping the ruler. It was done in various degrees of lunacy, but that was a religion disguised as atheism. Look up North Korea and you'll get the picture. You can't say that that's an atheistic society.
The cults of Josiph Visarionovich, J.B.Tito, Ceauşescu etc were parallel with dogma of "scientific atheism", but these were not identical phenomena.
Eurobarometer poll conducted in 2005
English: This map shows the result of an Eurobarometer poll conducted in 2005. The colors indicated the percentage of people in each country who answered "I believe there is a God" in the interview. The countries marked in grey were not included in the poll. See also Image:Europe-atheism-2005.png for percentage of people who answered "I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force" in the same poll.
@marian said:
It's not that simple. Here's a better thought out explanation.http://youtu.be/S-BQVmvulmQ
You know, I was living for 14 years in Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and so called "scientific atheism" was part of my school education and ideological indoctrination.
It was (para)religion based on twisted facts, poor reasoning and prejudices. It had its priests, prophets and holy scriptures... and of course the other religions were archenemies.
For me - atheist is someone who BELIEVE in nonexistence of Gd ..
.. on the other hand, this word has really broad palette of meanings ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
I am agnostic. ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
And of course .. one of the core problems of all of us = a,non,para(or whatever else)...theists is : "Who/What exactly is the Gd we are talking about?" 
@marian said:
@starling75 said:
Pure atheism is only another religion .. it's inverted "theism".
No it's not, in the same measure non-Romanians are not a separate ethnic group.
Though I do grant you that some atheists are as obtuse and hardheaded as the bible thumpers. That only shows humans are humans irrespective of ideology, doctrine or philosophy.
non-theist is agnostic = someone who claims: Gd's existence is uknown and probably unknowable ( ...certainly uncertaint )
a-theist is someone who claims - Gd doesn't exist, because ... Lenin said that, because there is no scientific proof of Gd etcetc
@marian said:
What is that suppose to mean? I have an issue with them and that's one of the major reasons why I also have an issue with the "holy" books that contain and prescribe them.
Pure atheism is only another religion .. it's inverted "theism".
@unknownuser said:
Fair enough. Still, I must insist a thesis is either proven or unproven. Possessing a degree of plausibility and being corroborated by facual proof just aren't quite the same thing.
Apologies for the fuzzy English.
....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems
:"Gödel's first incompleteness theorem shows that any consistent formal system that includes enough of the theory of the natural numbers is incomplete: there are true statements expressible in its language that are unprovable.."
@unknownuser said:
@ely862me said:
I wouldn't talk that bad about a book that has been proven as true and as Word of God..
Your other arguments are quite reasonable. This one, however, isn't. The Bible hasn't been proven true. And no, there can be no debate whatsoever about the meaning of "proven true". Either something is proven to be true, or it hasn't - there's no inbetween.
Well there is something inbetween.. depends on what logical system you choose.
Everlasting life is not the prize for a winner but nightmare.
Cornel, your citations of Bible and Jesus guy are irelevant for my perception of the world.
In fact it's quite a bit annoying....
@unknownuser said:
@starling75 said:
Thinking about the existence/nonexistence of God is full of paradoxes one can't solve using our limited minds and linear language...
On the other hand.. it is fun
No, it is NOT "fun" - IT IS VITAL!
Finally it is eternal life, with God, or hell, apart from God ...
Sorry, I am not follower of this eternal life vs hell concept.
Since God is perceived to be omnipotent and omniscient - he/she/it must be inevitably fluctuating on infinitesimally thin border between existence and nonexistence, sense and nonsense, good and evil....
After all, I am from my country
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus - L.Wittgenstein
Question mentioned in the title of this thread leads directly to the traps of language.
Thinking about the existence/nonexistence of God is full of paradoxes one can't solve using our limited minds and linear language...
On the other hand.. it is fun
@unknownuser said:
Marian, give me AN EXAMPLE, not a list!
You can not to choose any example from the list?
@unknownuser said:
Marian, you're joking...
You do not open the Bible, but you think you know better about it, but billions of people who have studied it and adopted it.Give me an example of contradiction in it!
http://www.google.com/search?q=bible+contradictions&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions
etcetc ..
Poor lady ..
One should be careful while tweaking its own geometry.
