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.

 

Should Atheists (be allowed to) Participate in a Religious Discussion?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: whyamIhere

Non-belief in a topic does not equate a no-ability, no-qualification to be able to discuss it. I may not like snakes...but I can talk about them.




posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy




Why would they be interested anyway, unless it is to simply provoke someone?


I certainly didn't try to provoke anyone.

I am genuinely curious how people think about this issue.

Sorry if you took it that way. I know this is a sensitive subject for some.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere
a reply to: WarminIndy




Why would they be interested anyway, unless it is to simply provoke someone?


I certainly didn't try to provoke anyone.

I am genuinely curious how people think about this issue.

Sorry if you took it that way. I know this is a sensitive subject for some.


I wasn't referring to you specifically, sorry if you thought I was.

But don't you think it's fair that given our Constitutional right to have freedom of religious expression that in this forum on ATS, that we should be allowed to express our religious ideas?

ATS is comfortable enough to allow us that right. But generally counter arguments are the first thing that happens. Some people think they are so bright that they automatically say things already found in this thread. If they have the idea that religion was formed to control the masses then they should create their own threads and then atheists can go there and bash all they want, but they don't they wait for a thread and then bash Christians on that.

There should be an anti-religious forum if that is all they want to do.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
It really depends on the subject. "Does God exist" should provoke answers from all sides. Maybe there should be a forum for specific groups who want to talk deeper e.g. "What is the significance of Jesus 1st miracle?". I know, a poor example, but there are threads posted here that seem specific to an ecclesiastical debate that could easily be hijacked by atheists and agnostics ( including myself).

In fairness, many of the debates e.g. "Are agnostics satanists?" (and there are equivalent brutish titles against christians) tend to be a red rag to a bull, for one group or another.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: whyamIhere
a reply to: WarminIndy




Why would they be interested anyway, unless it is to simply provoke someone?


I certainly didn't try to provoke anyone.

I am genuinely curious how people think about this issue.

Sorry if you took it that way. I know this is a sensitive subject for some.


I wasn't referring to you specifically, sorry if you thought I was.

But don't you think it's fair that given our Constitutional right to have freedom of religious expression that in this forum on ATS, that we should be allowed to express our religious ideas?

ATS is comfortable enough to allow us that right. But generally counter arguments are the first thing that happens. Some people think they are so bright that they automatically say things already found in this thread. If they have the idea that religion was formed to control the masses then they should create their own threads and then atheists can go there and bash all they want, but they don't they wait for a thread and then bash Christians on that.

There should be an anti-religious forum if that is all they want to do.


Why divide and separate if you can become one?
There is only one most efficient mechanism, except that in specific situations specific specializations or illusions might mean more fun if you don't have the time to see beyond!
Tho certain people being kept away might be useful to research something specific, indeed.
"formed to control the masses" -> gathering likeliness and actual impact and keep it in mind
edit on 23-4-2014 by oneoneone because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Of course they should be allowed to, the better question is why shouldn't they?

Should a non-smoker not be able to debate the effects of smoking since they don't smoke?



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: oneoneone

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: whyamIhere
a reply to: WarminIndy




Why would they be interested anyway, unless it is to simply provoke someone?


I certainly didn't try to provoke anyone.

I am genuinely curious how people think about this issue.

Sorry if you took it that way. I know this is a sensitive subject for some.


I wasn't referring to you specifically, sorry if you thought I was.

But don't you think it's fair that given our Constitutional right to have freedom of religious expression that in this forum on ATS, that we should be allowed to express our religious ideas?

ATS is comfortable enough to allow us that right. But generally counter arguments are the first thing that happens. Some people think they are so bright that they automatically say things already found in this thread. If they have the idea that religion was formed to control the masses then they should create their own threads and then atheists can go there and bash all they want, but they don't they wait for a thread and then bash Christians on that.

There should be an anti-religious forum if that is all they want to do.


Why divide and separate if you can become one?
There is only one most efficient mechanism, except that in specific situations specific specializations or illusions might mean more fun if you don't have the time to see beyond!
Tho certain people being kept away might be useful to research something specific, indeed.


Become one what?

Are you asking us to accept your worldview? And then you can't see why your statement has just become divisive?



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Of course they should be allowed to, the better question is why shouldn't they?

Should a non-smoker not be able to debate the effects of smoking since they don't smoke?


And aren't you on the other thread complaining about religion being used in the abortion debate?

Apply it across the board.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

I didn't realize I was saying you weren't allowed to debate abortion.
edit on 4/23/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: oneoneone

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: whyamIhere
a reply to: WarminIndy




Why would they be interested anyway, unless it is to simply provoke someone?


I certainly didn't try to provoke anyone.

I am genuinely curious how people think about this issue.

Sorry if you took it that way. I know this is a sensitive subject for some.


I wasn't referring to you specifically, sorry if you thought I was.

But don't you think it's fair that given our Constitutional right to have freedom of religious expression that in this forum on ATS, that we should be allowed to express our religious ideas?

ATS is comfortable enough to allow us that right. But generally counter arguments are the first thing that happens. Some people think they are so bright that they automatically say things already found in this thread. If they have the idea that religion was formed to control the masses then they should create their own threads and then atheists can go there and bash all they want, but they don't they wait for a thread and then bash Christians on that.

There should be an anti-religious forum if that is all they want to do.


Why divide and separate if you can become one?
There is only one most efficient mechanism, except that in specific situations specific specializations or illusions might mean more fun if you don't have the time to see beyond!
Tho certain people being kept away might be useful to research something specific, indeed.


Become one what?

Are you asking us to accept your worldview? And then you can't see why your statement has just become divisive?


I mean combining information together instead of denying it and saying I have the right to not listen.
One alone can never understand all the details of this place in this short life.
2 information "sides" -> 1 side between instead of both denying each other.
No need to divide it in multiple views of looking at it except for the means of understanding each other to know the way to express information to him/her more easily.

"formed to control the masses" -> gathering likeliness and actual impact and keep it in mind, combining it with whatever else you know
edit on 23-4-2014 by oneoneone because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere


If somebody was discussing the existence of Santa Claus...I would just move on.


So you're saying that if you were with a group of people and someone said Santa Claus does exist you would just keep your mouth shut? You wouldn't say anything at all? I mean, if you don't believe in Santa Claus, what gives you the right to say you disagree, right?


Do you think people of faith are uneducated or just dumb?


No. There's nothing wrong in having faith in something. But when one speaks about talking snakes and the origin's of the first female being from a man's rib and their belief in a benevolent god that would not hesitate to wipe out all of humanity for pissing him off I tend to see that as ignorant and uneducated.


Does it bother you that people of faith seem to be happy and blissful?


Why would it bother me to see anyone happy and blissful? How absurd. What I would like to point out is your ignorance in believing that people of faith are just naturally happy and blissful and the insinuation that those who are not must be miserable. I've have experienced quite the opposite quite a few times in my life. In fact, there's no consitency in regards to religious belief or lack thereof when it comes to the quality of life of anyone I know. It's a mixed bag.


Do you feel you are educating people who have been indoctrinated?


In a sense, yes. Sometimes people are so entrenched in the circle of people around them that they don't typically encounter someone with a different view or set of beliefs. Many people throughout history and now have changed their belief systems when presented with opposing views that they might identify with more than the only one they were exposed to for a very long time.


Some of you seem to believe in UFO's. Doesn't that require faith?


Faith is simply the strong belief in something. Your talking about spiritual faith which doesn't apply to UFO's. I believe UFO's exist but I don't have faith in that. That isn't to say that someone who does have faith in UFO's can't also be atheists.


Atheism is on the rise. Have people just lost their faith?


It's not just atheism that is on the rise. Secularism and agnosticism are also on the rise. People too often lump anyone who does not adhere to religion as an atheist. This is not the case. Someone has to have faith in order to lose it. Some people still have it but stop adhering to religion and become secular. Others simply realize they really don't have a clue about spirituality and were just going through the motions because that is what they were taught from birth. It could also be that people are less afraid to call themselves atheist than they once were.


Would you be willing to admit you have no proof whether God exists or not?


I certainly would, but that's becaue I'm more agnostic than anything. I am a bit spiritual because I believe there is something out there, but I don't believe in he personification of God nor do I believe in a all-powerful, supreme being.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I've often wonder why atheists would opine in a religious discussion. Perhaps it would help clarify if I gave an example.

Let's say we were discussing whether Jesus lived as a man/mortal or whether he were divine/Godlike. This would be a theological discussion between people that already believe in Jesus. The purpose of the discussion or say a thread here on ats would I expect be a theology debate. Should a person jump into this thread with doubts about the historical accuracy of Jesus or other doubts I might consider it a derailing. People are free to voice their opinions and this happens quite frequently. The point of debate is not say whether Jesus existed, but whether he was divine.

I would suggest a poster that felt the need to point out inaccuracies in belief systems, or wish to air their doubts about theology should be free to start a new thread.

I think people sometimes over-excersize their opinions and it leads to multiple de-railings. The original poster might have intended a proper debate on their chosen subject but will witness a thread devolving into chaos.

This subject goes further then just religious debates as it seems to permeate many things that are discussed here on ats.

Ad the op stated, if the conversation were about Santa Claus, and I didn't believe in Santa Claus I probably wouldn't opine. There's really no point to it and it wouldn't address the topic at hand. If I thought belief in Santa Claus was ridiculous I should then start a new thread explaining my position.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
double post
edit on 23-4-2014 by Seiko because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Seiko

Very good thought


I think they don't see what they're doing there, even if we created a rule the specific type and situation of the type of person in which they're doing it won't stop them though by just writing it in a rule


However.. in general filtering out people from the forums who are unscientific in language or uncareful would more likely permanently bring a clean state.
But then again both the religious people and the "vs" people have in some way to be shaken to learn something in some way. These are forums granting especially that kind of wisdom.
edit on 23-4-2014 by oneoneone because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

That or science, archeology and the occult collaborated against the ignorant and let them cover up all the evidence pointing to the obvious orthodox truths.

Because if people aren't going to believe the truth then you might as well let them delude themselves.

There are a number of obvious evidences alluding to a global flood.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Chamberf=6

Well if you're earnest then you might be on the right track. Religion isn't faith, faith isn't religion. You don't need religion to have faith and you don't even need to know that you have faith to have faith. The 1 true religion is knowledge, knowledge may be power but it is not something that you actually need. You can just float through life just fine if you're righteous and you might be better off than the person that spent their life frantically trying to distinguish true knowledge from mentally fabricated falsehood through religions. Religion can make people mental, especially if they lack faith. It is easy to delude the faithless, those that don't believe are practically impossible to even force to accept the evident truth.
edit on 23-4-2014 by On7a7higher7plane because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: WarminIndy

I didn't realize I was saying you weren't allowed to debate abortion.


Nope, only the religious part is decried on that thread.

Should abortion be argued in the Religious section?



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Both sides are decried actually, that's why it's called a debate.


Sure it belongs in the religious forum, it's mostly a religious and/or ethical issue, so I'd say it fits the glove. This is off-topic though.

edit on 4/23/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: WarminIndy

Both sides are decried actually, that's why it's called a debate.


Sure it belongs in the religious forum, it's mostly a religious and/or ethical issue, so I'd say it fits the glove. This is off-topic though.


On topic

Already we have seen people on this thread trying to sway people from the belief in God. Why?



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: nunya13

I think that the term spiritual faith and belief and literal faith need to be distinguished. Faith is something real, you can foster it or you can let it slip. You can't have that kind of faith in anything, that would be mere belief. That extreme fortune attributed to the faithful in ancient record and recent record is no mere chance, it's because faith is a real thing and it makes you "lucky".

You mentioned the Genesis story and I think you are implying that the truths presented in that story aren't symbolic to the point of a literal "basic English understanding" interpretation being incorrect.

Also I think you are partly correct about the idea of God extinguishing mankind because they pissed him off and didn't believe in him being foolish, like Santa nuking your house because you doubted him. But is the possibility that God wiped the Earth clean of humans an act of preservation the truth? I think it's likely, humanity was on the way out because in antediluvian times things were far more simple and the relationship between humanities actions and the Earths response was more direct, the repercussions of humanities actions directly impacted the Earth's climate, geologic activity, ecosystem, etc.. In the end people started starving and eating each other and wouldn't have survived in the deteriorating ecosystem without a flood, it would have been the end of humanity, there would be no humans at this point, the Earth would have became barren. So God made a judgement, the flood happened and the Earth made a rapid correction to all that "karma" that wasn't consistent with mother natures plan while the Earth was covered with water, continents shifted and after the flood the Earth was in a distorted state, those previous direct relationships between humanities actions and the Earths response became indirect. In the grand scheme of things the success of humanity, not to mention many existing species, was highly unlikely without some sort of assistance. From their development and evolution to calamities like meteor impacts.

Really atheists interpretation and understanding of the mainstream religions is childish and immature. Part of the reason why they ruin conversations deeply involved in the universes sublime mysteries.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join