It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An Important Question for ALL atheists...

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by tsingtao
 


What science? We tried science in the 20th century and should we try it again? What did you mean if I am off mark.




posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Grimpachi

tsingtao

Grimpachi
reply to post by tsingtao
 





let's see, NK has no religion so that might be a place you would like and won't have to struggle to change anything.


Nah. I didn't even like living in South Korea it gets to hot and to cold. Plus I don't like the government of NK.


atheists don't care about other countries and peoples?


Sure we do.


just the USA?


There is a saying about cleaning up your own backyard first that applies.


USA then the world?

gonna straighten us all out, eh? give a timeline for the rest of the neighborhood.

i think we might be drifting OT. so i will leave this thread.


Actually the US is lagging behind the rest of the modern world. We are kind of slow, but I still think we can get there.


have you actually been to the "rest of the world"?



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by tsingtao
 


What science? We tried science in the 20th century and should we try it again? What did you mean if I am off mark.


lol, ruling by atheism, silly.

why would a few years make any difference in outcome?



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by tsingtao
 


Atheists ruled the 20th century?



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


In the Soviet Union to name one regime.
But, to blame the Soviet Union's excesses atheism is just as silly as blame religion for other excesses.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by HarbingerOfShadows
 

It's a logical extension of belief. Actions arise from thoughts. Beliefs are thoughts. If we are going to discuss whether beliefs are or are not benign obviously it would call for a discussion of actions from those beliefs. Excluding that from the argument makes no sense.


But to think a thing is not to do a thing.


Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by HarbingerOfShadows
 

Then your point made no sense. I actually thought it did, but if what I said was a tangent then I guess I am wrong in that assessment.


Perfect sense.
Just you are actively avoiding it.
Yes, some act atrociously with their beliefs as an excuse.
But that does not negate the fact that not all do.
No matter how many times you bring it up.


Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by HarbingerOfShadows
 

I've been actively engaged in discussion not just with LGBT but with those that oppose it for over a decade. My experience shows otherwise. Agree to disagree I suppose. I strongly feel it's primarily due to religions instilling these beliefs into people [children especially].


Funny.
My personal experience, one that has had me come across a unfortunately large numbers of homophobes.
A few of the most notable ones were not what I would call religious.
It seemed their homophobia was more from a breathtakingly stupid viewpoint of masculity and what that entails.
Machismo if you will.

And I'll concede that religion is used as an excuse.
It often is, in many contexts, which is understandable considering.





Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by HarbingerOfShadows
 

I support their right to believe it as well. I don't support the right for their religious beliefs to dictate the lives of non-believers. Separation of religion from State and protecting the minority from the majority comes to mind as well.


Awfully funny way of showing it.
Since we are currently splitting hairs as to the thought action divide and you're saying thoughts are not null on a benign to malignant scale.
Paint their belief as something distructive and then claim you support their right to have that belief?


Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by HarbingerOfShadows
 

Indeed. So long as. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. My argument is about when they do.


Then make that distinction.
You haven't thus far haven't and seem to fight me when I do.


Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by HarbingerOfShadows
 

So is that what discussion with you is going to look like?


I don't know.
Are you going to continue?


Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by HarbingerOfShadows
 

Saying things like "unimportant" "tangent" "disregarded" …. with no explanation…


Given that you already have a track record of disregarding key parts of what I say?



Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by HarbingerOfShadows
 

I wouldn't call it magic but yes. It's a very strong factor in how they think, feel, and act.


Even though their more negative actions are often in violation of certain other rules within their religion?
Fascinating.....
edit on 10-3-2014 by HarbingerOfShadows because: Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by HarbingerOfShadows
 

You jumped in on a reply of mine to Ben. He asked why I would be concerned about religious beliefs.

To which I replied I live in a society that is predominately religious and that as a consequence translates to a lot of religious influence in decisions that affect the society I live in. That influence is obviously religious beliefs manifested as actions. I later gave you two examples with LGBT equality and stem cell research to demonstrate what I meant.

That's the context.

I never claimed religious people always act out their religious beliefs which you're now saying I did. In fact, I even acknowledged that in part of my post you "disregarded". Perhaps that's the problem. Stop disregarding. Might help..

My argument was that religious beliefs are not benign. And since you made the claim they are null, I'm certainly arguing against that. I don't need every religious person to act out every religious belief to demonstrate the concern I was sharing with Ben, nor to demonstrate your claim is fallacious. Just need enough.

As for painting their beliefs bad. I gave a response to that as well but it's another one you 'disregarded'.


Then make that distinction.
You haven't thus far haven't and seem to fight me when I do.

How have I not made this distinction. I already gave two literal examples.

Instead of disregarding half my posts and thinking we are fighting can I suggest you think of it as discussion. I am reading your posts and my aim is discussion.


Given that you already have a track record of disregarding key parts of what I say?

What have I disregarded? Please spell it out. I am sure I will be willing to give a response. If I feel I already have I will let you know, or paraphrase.


Paint their belief as something distructive and then claim you support their right to have that belief?

I see no conflict. I could support someone's freedom to believe black people are lesser humans and still view it as a destructive belief. If they more or less keep it to themselves it wouldn't be that destructive. Depending on how their belief was acted out and or influenced society determines how destructive it is. I wouldn't support any legal action or discrimination towards said person simply because they had the belief.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Not my conversation, but your posts have given me an idea, so I'm gonna take a crack at this. The point of your thread is to separate agnostics from atheists by their responses to the idea of proving or disproving god. And you hoped they would see it happening and finally realize the point you've been making for the last three or so threads. Am I close?
edit on 10-3-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Simple RELIGION and associated books of fairy tales to back it up are to only to keep a powerful group of people in a job!

Any god CREATED by MAN on this planet has as much right to be believed by the followers as any other, can they all be right NO but they can all be WRONG!

god(s) don't exist they were CREATED to explain things at the time that MAN could not understand or explain.

By the systematic BRAINWASHING at school and children being FORCED to attend the local BRAINWASHING academies the MYTH has persisted PLAIN and SIMPLE.

Here are just some of the many god(s) MAN has created!!! Names of god(s)

It's amazing how people are told that these so called all powerful beings created everything YET there message was restricted to their tiny part of the Earth strange don't you think or is the problem some people let others think for them



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   

HarbingerOfShadows
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


In the Soviet Union to name one regime.
But, to blame the Soviet Union's excesses atheism is just as silly as blame religion for other excesses.


A lot of people associate marxism (communism) with atheism. They are wrong on two fronts.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   

tsingtao

Grimpachi

tsingtao

Grimpachi
reply to post by tsingtao
 





let's see, NK has no religion so that might be a place you would like and won't have to struggle to change anything.


Nah. I didn't even like living in South Korea it gets to hot and to cold. Plus I don't like the government of NK.


atheists don't care about other countries and peoples?


Sure we do.


just the USA?


There is a saying about cleaning up your own backyard first that applies.


USA then the world?

gonna straighten us all out, eh? give a timeline for the rest of the neighborhood.

i think we might be drifting OT. so i will leave this thread.


Actually the US is lagging behind the rest of the modern world. We are kind of slow, but I still think we can get there.


have you actually been to the "rest of the world"?



I have been to a lot of countries, but I think you are trying to say if I haven't been there I shouldn't have a knowledge about them. The internet is really good for research as well as going on ATS you can literally read about places all over the world with a computer. You should try it.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Not fear either. You are a little warmer though.

I welcome you to keep trying though if you get it I will let you know.

Because of your reluctance to tell me what "it" is, I can only assume that "it" is a combination of both, jealousy and fear.

See ya,
Milt



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Jealous of what exactly?



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
When I was "more agnostic" ... I debated the possibilities of "knowing anything" both with others and with myself. How many unchanging, incontrovertible facts exist outside a system of mutually-accepted definitions and meanings? None, said I.

When I become "more atheist" ... I began to exclude all the subjective "possibilities" and focus on what I could reasonably prove to be true objectively, or at least, to exist within the parameters of the reality of the experiences of my own life. Logic, reason and evidence came to rule this "paradigm" of mine. I don't hold a belief in "no-god" because that's simply illogical; for me, there is simply no evidence of "a god" that cannot be more easily and adequately explained by non-divine forces.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 



I began to exclude all the subjective "possibilities" and focus on what I could reasonably prove to be true objectively, or at least, to exist within the parameters of the reality of the experiences of my own life.


Isn't that the definition of subjective?
edit on 10-3-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Only in comparison to an external frame of epistemological reference, although your point is well-taken, semantically. However, my past experiences have established that those elements which I claim to be "objective" exist independently of and are additionally verifiable outside the reference frame of my own experience, though, that consensus is not the basis of my conception nor the "proof" of my own reality.

So ... yes and know?



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   

BenReclused
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Not fear either. You are a little warmer though.

I welcome you to keep trying though if you get it I will let you know.

Because of your reluctance to tell me what "it" is, I can only assume that "it" is a combination of both, jealousy and fear.

See ya,
Milt


There is no reluctance Milt. I have responded to you many times with concise answers in this thread and the 3 others only to have you ignore them or tell me I am off topic.

Please do not assume things. I told you if you got it right I would tell you. Your current assumption isn't even close. If I let emotions rule me that would be irrational.
edit on 10-3-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Not my conversation, but your posts have given me an idea, so I'm gonna take a crack at this. The point of your thread is to separate agnostics from atheists by their responses to the idea of proving or disproving god. And you hoped they would see it happening and finally realize the point you've been making for the last three or so threads. Am I close?
edit on 10-3-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


Which means all you guys going on about "why do you think all atheists are trying to disprove god" can stop now. That's not the point here. If, in fact, I'm right. Which BenReclused hasn't verified.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Not my conversation,

Nonsense! Everyone owns this conversation...


your posts have given me an idea, so I'm gonna take a crack at this

Yes, indeed... And it, worked, too...


The point of your thread is to separate agnostics from atheists by their responses to the idea of proving or disproving god.

No... I'd never want to separate anyone.

However, I was indeed, trying to "highlight" the "conflict of interest" that, truly does, separate atheism, from agnosticism. And, you helped me narrow "agnosticism" down to one thing:

As a matter of fact, I feel that ALL THINGS are possible, unless that "possibility" can be objectively "ruled out". To me, God is only one those "possible things", that hasn't, yet, been "ruled out".

Life doesn't get anymore "agnostic" than that, and if you don't feel that way, you can't be one. That seems fairly simple, to me...


And you hoped they would see it happening and finally realize the point you've been making for the last three or so threads.

Kind of... But, in reality, there are more, "points", to find...


Am I close?

Well... I'll give you an A+, and a star, for paying attention, and thinking about "it"... How does that "GRAB YOU!"?

See ya buddy,
Milt



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


However, I was indeed, trying to "highlight" the "conflict of interest" that, truly does, separate atheism, from agnosticism.

Well that separation has not been highlighted to me. I see you saying agnosticism is stating something is possible until its been objectively proven to be otherwise. Okay. That doesn't prevent someone from lacking belief in the existence though. People lack belief in things without knowing that certainty all the time. They can lack belief and fully be aware they don't know that certainty and so acknowledge its possibility.

The position of atheism that has a 'conflict of interest' [depending on what one means by god] is the 'strong atheist'. The one claiming gnosis…that certainty. According to the definition of atheism you yourself provided this position is one of two. The other is simply the lack of belief.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join