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: 11
7
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


That's not what "agnostic" means though. Agnostic means you believe the knowledge does not exist. What you're saying is that anything is possible. We've got two different ideas floating around here, and I suspect that's the root of the argument.




posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Agnostic means you believe the knowledge does not exist.

To say the knowledge does not exist is to suppose certain truth claims that seem antithetical to the principle of agnosticism as I understand it.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Look up the definition.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Is that Amy Winehouse?


Either way I would lol

edit on 11-3-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

I have always understood it to mean that, in matters of god, it is a person who believes that the knowledge about god isn't available to man. That is a stance/opinion on the matter.

Add to that the fact that his premise demands "objectivity" to rule something out but, the OP then goes on to "subjectively" claim that the possibility has not been ruled out.

Even he isn't sticking to what he is proposing.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 



Add to that the fact that his premise demands "objectivity" to rule something out but, the OP then goes on to "subjectively" claim that the possibility has not been ruled out.


A fair point.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



Look up the definition.

So if I understand you correctly. We shouldn't, using your words, use Huxley as a 'central reference point', despite the fact he's the founder of the term itself, but instead we should adhere to a random web definition for it. Why? So you win the argument?


Sorry man. I need better reason.

Naturally I have looked up many definitions since I am obviously both familiar with it and have been a participant in now three of Ben's threads recently on it. I'd rather you not be so dismissive, I already get that from Ben.

reply to post by boymonkey74
 


Aye
That's me as Amy minus the make-up unfortunately ^_^
edit on 11-3-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I thought about it some more and I agree with you. In that I believe you mean we do not possess the knowledge. However, the whole idea of 'god' is a supernatural force. It's supposedly in a realm outside of the known physical Universe. We do not know definitively there isn't such and existence. So we don't know definitively people do not possess the knowledge of this being postmortem. That's what I had meant.
edit on 11-3-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 




"The Man from Earth"
Art: [Quietly disturbed / reflective] Supernatural, stupid word, everything that happens happens within nature whether we believe it or not.

edit on 12-3-2014 by HarbingerOfShadows because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Thank your for that clarification. It inspired a train of thought which I have not yet reasoned out fully, but maybe you can add to it. According to your understanding, "god" is most essentially a supernatural force capable of breaking the laws of physics as readily as it made them, without any natural consequences whatsoever. This suggests one of two things: that force is impossible, or that force molded this universe from a superset of natural laws. This superset, as reflected in the feats of such a force, would effectively be prone to two polar states. That is to say, both states are equally likely to be observed at any given time, as demonstrated by the ease with which the fundamental properties of time and space are made to cease their natural functions at the bidding of such a force. This sort of universe would be, if such an extrapolation were taken to be true, the embodiment of chaos, as there would be no order. And such a force would then be an element of chaos. I fail to see how this universe could have survived given a visit from that.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   

sn0rch

MrInquisitive
You seem to be under the impression that atheists, agnostics and such spend some appreciable fraction of their time looking for evidence of the non-existence of "god", and that they also spend their time attempting to convince persons of faith that there is no "god".


We do, don't we?

I also, in my spare time, like to prove that 1 + 1 = 3, and when I find evidence of this I will be able to prove maths entirely wrong.

I am still trying to make my own maths, so this is a worthy endeavour.



Very possible!!!
Start your own brand new Language...
Switch the words Three & Four...
Hey presto... 2+2=3!



reply to post by BenReclused
 


As for the OP...
I'm a believer...
In my own faith...

Forewarning: may seem to be digression please bare with me!

I believe in the one true Goddess Nut as the Divine creator!
This faith mainly relies on Spirituality & Symbolism!
We are referred to as "Nuts"(derogatory towards mental health sufferers like myself)!!! Re:Symbolism
Or Men say they "Nut" when they ejaculate as to say they are the Creators! Re:Symbolism
This Symbolism is what I would consider the Conspiratorial side of my faith... Staying strong against the Male dominated society & Male dominated Religious dogma!!!
Although all Holy Scriptures play a part, they are infiltrated versions of the word sent down!!!
The true book is The Book Of The Dead, used as a guide for the good Spirits, Angels, Demons (who were the first to be Demonised Re:Symbolism) & Goddess Nut to determine righteousness, among other things!

Plenty more but Re: Digression!

As much as I would like Atheists & others to adhere to this belief...
The onus is still on me to prove this, experience & Symbology aside, i cannot convince otherwise!
But I'd never expect an Atheist to be able to/need to disprove this if non-existent! IMO!


Peace!



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   
The main reason i like to point out is the variety of different religions and there meanings. With there being so many different religions & a different perspective of "GOD" in almost every one, How can we tell which one is right. The thought of several different Gods Existed Long Before The Christian Belief of just one. So how did it become so dominant? POWER, "GOD" was created for power!!! Just Do Your Research On (Constatine) & You'll Understand...



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by jizzbo5100
 


Your point has inspired an intriguing idea in my mind. It seems that the focus of all religion and philosophy is a sort of discipline. Disciplining our minds and bodies so that our inherent qualities do not overrule the qualities we choose to incorporate as part of our "character development". Which begs the next question: is religion the exercise, the trial, or the prize? The practice dummy, the foe in the battle field, or the spoils of victory? Or in terms of philosophy - the class, the trial, or the triumph?
edit on 18-3-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Belief in a God or not is ones personal choice, its their human right, those who try to force their opinions and beliefs on others are abusing that right.
Those who set out to disprove the existence of a god probably feel they are backing the easier option.
Never let man or religion get between you and your chosen God, and never let it become a lame excuse to back up an argument.
Those who do not believe in any God should just keep quiet and get on with it because there's nothing to argue about.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by zeevar
 


So you are of the opinion that atheists should shut up and move along.

My answer to you is I refuse. Such a declaration aims to suppress free speech and dialogue about a matter influential in almost every aspect of our societies. No one has a right to make unsubstantiated assertions, or vouch for the truthfulness of unsubstantiated assertions on the basis of “sacred” texts, without expecting objections from thinking folk. It is simply amazing that so many have the opinion that atheists should be quite yet they have nothing to say about theists like they are the only ones with rights.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

zeevar
Belief in a God or not is ones personal choice, its their human right, those who try to force their opinions and beliefs on others are abusing that right.
Those who set out to disprove the existence of a god probably feel they are backing the easier option.
Never let man or religion get between you and your chosen God, and never let it become a lame excuse to back up an argument.
Those who do not believe in any God should just keep quiet and get on with it because there's nothing to argue about.



Thats all fine and dandy as long as you dont try to endoctrinate me or my kids in your hogwash. If choice it is, then I can very well choose not to.
Its impossible to prove a negative, the real burden lies on those trying to perpetuate the god lie. Prove me that it(he, she?) does exist.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 

If you believe in a god keep your covenant with that god, if you dont..what is there to argue about?
I am not advocating the suppressing freedom of speech, just expressing my opinion.
Atheists have every right not to believe, but what is the point of trying to convince others there is no God, and the same applies to the other side, evidence to back up both arguments is sorely lacking, and there for remains just a belief.
If I dont believe in something, I would quite happily say so, but I wouldn't want to convince someone who does otherwise if I have no proof to back up my argument.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by zeevar
 


So you are of the opinion that atheists should shut up and move along.

My answer to you is I refuse. Such a declaration aims to suppress free speech and dialogue about a matter influential in almost every aspect of our societies. No one has a right to make unsubstantiated assertions, or vouch for the truthfulness of unsubstantiated assertions on the basis of “sacred” texts, without expecting objections from thinking folk. It is simply amazing that so many have the opinion that atheists should be quite yet they have nothing to say about theists like they are the only ones with rights.


My thoughts exactly. If you like chocolate ice cream with brussel sprout chunks in it and lots of ketchup slathered on top and a healthy dose of fermented stinky cheese milk to wash it down, that doesn't mean you should vote to make it mandatory in public schools or force your child to partake in it, nor does it make your taste in eccentric foods any more valid or reasonable than someone else's.
edit on 18-3-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Yusomad
 


Your choice in your belief is not indoctrination, for me to force my views upon you you would be so, it should always be about choice, and the freedom to do so.
I have seen first hand the damage indoctrination can do.
I do not aim to set out to prove the existence or absence of a god, that is up to you to decide for your self, it should be your choice.
As for your kids, their guidance is your responsibility not mine.
edit on 18-3-2014 by zeevar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by zeevar
 





If you believe in a god keep your covenant with that god, if you dont..what is there to argue about?


I think I just outlined several reasons to have a stance. " a matter influential in almost every aspect of our societies"




I am not advocating the suppressing freedom of speech, just expressing my opinion.


Your statement of "Those who do not believe in any God should just keep quiet and get on with it" is advocating suppression of free speech.



Atheists have every right not to believe,

I know that.




but what is the point of trying to convince others there is no God, and the same applies to the other side,


As rational people already know a person cannot prove a negative so what we have here is atheists saying there is no evidence and theists claiming there is and not producing said evidence.



evidence to back up both arguments is sorely lacking, and there for remains just a belief.
As I have already gone over the premise of proving a negative the burdon of providing evidence is on the theists.



If I dont believe in something, I would quite happily say so, but I wouldn't want to convince someone who does otherwise if I have no proof to back up my argument.


I don't care what anyone believes however when they try to claim their belief is evidence based then I will call it out for what it is. Same goes for when they use their belief to influence the world we share I will point out how their belief has no basis in reality nor should it give credence to the changes they are pushing on all of us.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join